ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , global warming , green energy issues

Reply
Old 11th February 2019, 08:07 PM   #401
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,388
I'm never going to catch up on this thread but I read a couple of pages. So some of the ideas proposed are dumb. I think there's still value in someone having offered up a sort of manifesto in that it might get the attention of young voters. (Or maybe not). In the early '70s there was a reason for young people to pay attention to government: the Vietnam War. In the 2000s' I saw a lot of young people energized by immigration issues, but I'm not sure they voted in droves. And now, I'm not sure there's any one issue that would drive young voters to the polls, but a far-reaching environmental statement is worthwhile if only to advance the conversation, IMO.

Young people are going to have longer to deal with whatever messes my generation has made, so it bums me out that they are not more involved. We're leaving them with kind of a mess.

ETA: I wonder if young people are half as interested in AOC as us, uh, middle-aged folk reading this thread ...

Last edited by Minoosh; 11th February 2019 at 08:09 PM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 08:33 PM   #402
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,840
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
We need to put things into perspective, we haven't solved the solar waste problem either. All technologies will produce waste and increase entropy in other places in the environment

https://solarindustrymag.com/online/..._A_Primer.html

Nuclear is about as clean as it gets.
Not sure what you're arguing here. You're claiming that "Nuclear is about as clean as it gets" because production of solar cells involves toxic chemicals? At least three of the chemicals you cited are also involved in producing reactor fuel. One the intermediates in reactor fuel production, uranium hexaflouride, is toxic, radioactive, highly corrosive, highly reactive, and subsequently hard to contain. It's also processed in the form a gas.

And when you're done solar cells aren't toxic or radioactive, but reactor fuel is both and gets worse as you use it.

Not sure how the "cleanliness" issue really plays out here.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 08:56 PM   #403
portlandatheist
Illuminator
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,113
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Not sure what you're arguing here. You're claiming that "Nuclear is about as clean as it gets" because production of solar cells involves toxic chemicals? At least three of the chemicals you cited are also involved in producing reactor fuel. One the intermediates in reactor fuel production, uranium hexaflouride, is toxic, radioactive, highly corrosive, highly reactive, and subsequently hard to contain. It's also processed in the form a gas.

And when you're done solar cells aren't toxic or radioactive, but reactor fuel is both and gets worse as you use it.

Not sure how the "cleanliness" issue really plays out here.
I think some of them are mildly toxic
https://www.solarpowerinternational...._9-14-1530.pdf

Title: PV Life Cycle Analysis Managing PV Assets over an Uncertain Lifetime
Quote:
Module disposal is potentially a major issue –Some modules contain hazardous waste, but limited data available to verify which modules fail the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) –Some deployment estimates show that PV waste could equal 10% of today’s e-waste by 2050 –Disposal in regular landfills not recommended in case modules break and toxic materials leach into the soil
and most importantly, at the end of the article:
Quote:
More data is needed to clarify the extent to which module toxicity is a pervasive issue.
My only point is that solar has a waste issue itself, whatever we do is going to cause downstream waste
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 09:04 PM   #404
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,840
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
I think some of them are mildly toxic
https://www.solarpowerinternational...._9-14-1530.pdf

Title: PV Life Cycle Analysis Managing PV Assets over an Uncertain Lifetime

and most importantly, at the end of the article:

My only point is that solar has a waste issue itself, whatever we do is going to cause downstream waste
Okay, then. You got me there. I accept your correction that solar cells might be a potential problem in landfills.

Can I get your opinion on disposing of nuclear waste the in same landfills they are talking about in that article? We're talking the same landfills that rotten apples and oranges might show up in.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 09:22 PM   #405
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
I think some of them are mildly toxic
https://www.solarpowerinternational...._9-14-1530.pdf

Title: PV Life Cycle Analysis Managing PV Assets over an Uncertain Lifetime


and most importantly, at the end of the article:


My only point is that solar has a waste issue itself, whatever we do is going to cause downstream waste
Anything that involves manufacturing and construction will have waste. Coal fired power plants even after FGD and any attempts at cleanup would be extremely costly to make "clean" and the internal combustion engine likewise.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 09:29 PM   #406
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,388
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Okay, then. You got me there. I accept your correction that solar cells might be a potential problem in landfills.

Can I get your opinion on disposing of nuclear waste the in same landfills they are talking about in that article? We're talking the same landfills that rotten apples and oranges might show up in.
Nuclear waste always seemed scarier to me because of the mutagenic possibilities. Plain old poison is bad enough but chromosome damage is maybe even scarier.

But you plan for it, design for it and factor it in the risk/benefit aspect. Nothing will be 100 percent safe.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 09:30 PM   #407
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,930
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
It's your side that is saying that is not enough, that we need to get rid of cows (or their farts).
Literally NO-ONE from any side is saying that we have to "get rid of cows". You look and sound increasingly like a CT doing a fringe reset, continually repeating a false meme after it has been clearly debunked.

What they are saying is that the methane emitted by dairy and beef herds is something that MUST be addressed.

Also, it seems (also typical CT behaviour) that you have totally ignored and hand-waved away factual information which has been posted here BY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!

I live in a country (New Zealand) where agriculture accounts for almost half (48%) of the entire country's greenhouse gas emissions from all other sources combined. Even worse, nearly quarter of all our greenhouse gasses come from a single sector of our agricultural activity... Dairy farming.



Phantom Wolf has posted several posts in thread explaining that "farting and burping cows" however much you might want snigger about it, and latch onto it as a meme to ridicule AGW believers, IS A REAL ISSUE FOR US!! We don't take it lightly, and we have a lot of Ag. scientists doing herd testing, experimentation and analysis to try to come up with dietary changes for our beef and dairy herds to minimise their output of greenhouse gases.

Also, the current NZ Government is undertaking a massive planting programme to try to extend the left-hand end of the above chart to offset the country's total greenhouse gas output. If we can do that, and minimise the output from Agriculture and Energy, we might just be able to not only reduce our net output to zero, way may even be able to achieve a net negative output.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 09:35 PM   #408
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,840
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Nuclear waste always seemed scarier to me because of the mutagenic possibilities. Plain old poison is bad enough but chromosome damage is maybe even scarier.

But you plan for it, design for it and factor it in the risk/benefit aspect. Nothing will be 100 percent safe.
Quite a few non-radioactive chemicals are mutagenic too. However, solar cell disposal and nuclear waste disposal are still not comparable.

BTW I feel the need to point out I'm overall in favor of nuclear power. Maybe not any current design, but still, I think nuclear needs to be taken seriously.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 10:03 PM   #409
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,804
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
What they are saying is that the methane emitted by dairy and beef herds is something that MUST be addressed.
This is probably wrong. The problem with CO2 is that it persists in the atmosphere for a long time. Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere nearly as long, it decays into CO2 in about a decade or so. To a first approximation Methane in the atmosphere only increases when emissions of Methane are increasing. IOW "equivalent CO2" should only count increases in Methane production not total respiration.

Furthermore, baring some major unforeseen rapid emission of Methane from permafrost or thawing Methane hydrates, Methane itself is a nearly negligible fraction of total greenhouse forcing by the time we start to get into the really bad scenarios.

Energy used in agriculture and fertilizer production are a bigger problem in the long run than Methane because these represent the introduction new carbon into the carbon cycle, Methane does not.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 10:07 PM   #410
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
The interesting thing for me in this thread is replacing coal and oil as fuels. I'm not in general thinking about cows. But I can point out that the cows are farmed and the breeding of most is controlled by humans. They are then fed high protein feeds and given pharmaceutical supplements. It isn't cows that are the root cause of the problem, it is overweight Austrians, Americans and others (come on you know who you are) who eat too much in general and beef in particular. Fewer cows would not be harmful to anyone including the bovine species.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 10:10 PM   #411
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,719
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
This is increasingly my concern with American politics. You have one side proposing solutions to a problem that I may not personally like, or may be tragically flaw is some way. Let's name them the Democrats, just as an example.

You have another side denying the problem exists and doing nothing about. Let's call them the Republicans.

If you accept that the problem is real, you really don't have any options. The options are faulty solution, or denialism.
I have expressed this problem regarding AGW for years now.

That's why I wrote this Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change and what is preventing its implementation? for a conservative blog and posted parts of it here already. See #288

The Green New Deal hasn't a chance in hell of solving the problem because they are more interested in making the US a socialist state than solving AGW.

But as bad as the Democrat plan may be, the denialism from the current Republican leadership is even worse. Not only will if fail to solve the problem, it could actually make it even worse than it is already.

oh and Smartcooky's prediction @ #290 has indeed come true at least on this thread.
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
...post will mostly fall on the deaf ears of...

... Greens, because it doesn't meet their 100% renewable energy, no nukes, no fossil fuels, tree-hugging hippie ideology

... Big business, because it would reduce their profit margins, leaving them less money for limousines, lavish dinners, multi-million dollar homes and private jets

... Conservatives, because to them, its not a 100% fix, and anything less than 100% is never worth considering (see the gun debate for further examples)

... The Far Right because, well, climate change is just a hoax.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 10:33 PM   #412
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,966
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
...nuclear power...
That is why building a plant today is just not economical without subsidies
Funny how fossil fuels aren't held to the "without subsidies" part

We could shift those subsidies over to alternative energy sources with no net change in cost.
Delvo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 10:37 PM   #413
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,321
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I have expressed this problem regarding AGW for years now.



That's why I wrote this Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change and what is preventing its implementation? for a conservative blog and posted parts of it here already. See #288



The Green New Deal hasn't a chance in hell of solving the problem because they are more interested in making the US a socialist state than solving AGW.



But as bad as the Democrat plan may be, the denialism from the current Republican leadership is even worse. Not only will if fail to solve the problem, it could actually make it even worse than it is already.



oh and Smartcooky's prediction @ #290 has indeed come true at least on this thread.
If they weren't in favour of implementing "socialism" would the same plan work?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 11:26 PM   #414
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Funny how fossil fuels aren't held to the "without subsidies" part

We could shift those subsidies over to alternative energy sources with no net change in cost.
Is subsidising fossil fuels a big thing - and if so where? I know in some countries such as Malaysia gasoline is subsidised but for coal i think the best on offer are longterm power purchase agreements which are needed to get funding.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 11:28 PM   #415
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,930
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
This is probably wrong. The problem with CO2 is that it persists in the atmosphere for a long time. Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere nearly as long, it decays into CO2 in about a decade or so.
Well duh! That means it ADDS CO2 on top of the CO2 we are already pumping into the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
To a first approximation Methane in the atmosphere only increases when emissions of Methane are increasing. IOW "equivalent CO2" should only count increases in Methane production not total respiration.
I have some news for you. Methane levels in the atmosphere ARE increasing, and rapidly. Global concentrations have risen from 722 parts per billion (ppb) in pre-industrial times to 1800 ppb by 2011, 2.5 fold increase, and it is currently at its highest value in at least 800,000 years

Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The 100-year global warming potential of methane is 28, which means that over a 100 year period, it traps 28 times more heat/mass unit than carbon dioxide and 32 times the effect when accounting for aerosol interactions.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:11 AM   #416
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,719
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
If they weren't in favour of implementing "socialism" would the same plan work?
Socialism is the plan. Your question doesn't even make sense.

This is their plan in their words:

Quote:
  • 100% of national power generation from renewable sources.
  • Building a national energy-efficient “smart” grid.
  • Upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety.
  • Decarbonising manufacturing, agricultural and other industries.
  • Decarbonising, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure.
  • Funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases.
  • Making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the US, helping other countries transition to carbon-neutral economies.
  • Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
  • Basic income programmes and universal health care.
Notice the last two?
  • Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
  • Basic income programmes and universal health care.

Remember, this is THEIR words, not some biased reporting trying to undermine the plan. THEIR own words and the undermining of the plan was done by them! This is why the plan is DOA. It never stood a chance in hell of working. Even if by some insanity it should happen to be passed, the damages to the economy of the country make it impossible to actually implement!

Scroll down to David Voxx's comments.

Quote:
David Roberts of Vox on why the Democrats should push for a "Green New Deal" in Congress, even though it will never get passed.
Even they know its impossible. The purpose of it is NOT to actually solve AGW nor even pass the legislation, but only to appear a certain way so as to garner votes for the Democrats next election. Just smoke and mirrors to appear caring of the environment and inch forward the true purpose for the Democrats
  • Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
  • Basic income programmes and universal health care.

Now if you were to change the question to ask could their plan work if it was really attempting to reverse AGW?

1) At current technology, 100% of national power generation from renewable sources is not possible without nuclear being part of that, if we maintain the same standards of reliability. We can do a lot, but not 100%. Not yet. With Nuclear we could, but they specifically said no nuclear.

2) I suppose a energy-efficient “smart” grid is possible to an extent, but I am not exactly sure how much more efficient they think they can be. Utilities are already stretching efficiencies to the limit of real world technology. Efficiencies never reach theoretical in the real world though, so I guess there is some room for improvement.

3)Rebuilding and/or refitting every building in the United States is simply not going to happen even if it was possible. The best we can do with that is building codes for new buildings and for remodels, but grandfathered in buildings are not going to be part of that even where it is possible, simply due to costs. It is literally impossible. The country doesn't even have the manpower to convert every building in the country to state of the art any time soon, even if we could afford it.

4)We can decarbonize some manufacturing, agriculture and some other industries. But unless we actually completely change agriculture to regenerative methods, we can;t get this to a net negative or even net zero. Certainly we can't decarbonize everything 100% right now at current technology. There is a lot we can do, but that's ridiculous. The fact they included agriculture here is encouraging, unfortunately nothing in the Green New Deal even hints at the required changes to infrastructure and reductions in regulatory burden or changing of commodity markets' buffer stock schemes necessary to actually accomplish this goal. I suppose we could be generous and grant that they eventually could get around to writing those required changes down too.

5)We can start decarbonising, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure. But we won't be finished in my lifetime. And I don't even want to go back to a world without flight. That's ridiculous and unnecessary anyway.

6) Their massive funding in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases is primarily focused on future CCS technology only in its infancy and combined with biofuels BeCCS. In theory it could work, in reality it doesn't. So they are going to throw money at the problem, but it is taking 2 steps backward to go three steps forward even under the best ideal potential circumstances. In reality now, biofuels take more fossil fuels energy to produce than they offset. BeCCS is dead in the water, but luckily evolution solved that particular problem millions of years ago and BCCS does work right now at current tech. So someone needs to tell them I guess. So they don't waste throwing all that money at a problem already solved by biology. Rather they should build the infrastructure for regenerative agriculture.

7)I have no problem with investing in technology so that later we can export it for a profit. Not sure the government needs to do this though. Just handle the buffer stock schemes and the regulatory burden changes, and we citizens can handle the rest.

8)9) oops Back to socialism rendering all the above financially impossible anyway, even if it could work.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 12th February 2019 at 12:19 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:13 AM   #417
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,186
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
The purpose of it is NOT to actually solve AGW nor even pass the legislation, but only to appear a certain way so as to garner votes for the Democrats next election.
Do you think that's AOC's motivation?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:24 AM   #418
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,568
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Literally NO-ONE from any side is saying that we have to "get rid of cows". You look and sound increasingly like a CT doing a fringe reset, continually repeating a false meme after it has been clearly debunked
From the FAQ, which is still posted on NPR's website:

"We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren't sure we can get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast..."

Now, it may be as others have said, that the goal is to get rid of the farts (or belches) and keep the cow. But if I told you I was going to get rid of my nagging wife, would you assume that I was going to convert her to nag-free?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 12th February 2019 at 12:27 AM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:26 AM   #419
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,719
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Do you think that's AOC's motivation?
I don't speak for individuals feelings. You would need to ask directly and hope for an honest answer.

But it can be inferred logically simply from close examination of the plan, yes. No other explanation seems plausible given how unworkable the plan is.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:31 AM   #420
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Socialism is the plan.


Notice the last two?

.
Yes i see the last 2 (numbers 8 and 9)

What about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 how do they look to you?

What about 6?


The present US government isn't in favour of any of those but on my travels internationally i am slowly seeing some move towards numbers 1, 2, 3 and 7
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:31 AM   #421
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,719
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
From the FAQ, which is still posted on NPR's website:

"We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren't sure we can get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast..."

Now, it may be as others have said, that the goal is to get rid of the farts (or belches) and keep the cow. But if I told you I was going to get rid of my nagging wife, would you assume that I was going to convert her to nag-free?
Luckily in the case of cows it is trivially easy to make them net negative emissions. I wrote an essay about that here

Since that makes them net negative, then it means we actually need more cows! so we go more net negative. However, you are correct, their agenda is to eliminate cows because they completely deny this possibility. It is also incompatible with their huge funding campaign for BeCCS.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 12th February 2019 at 12:35 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:36 AM   #422
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,568
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That'll never happen. So what's your preference? Dropping fossil fuels, or becoming fossil fuels?
We will never NOT need the energy from coal-fired power plants? Is that what you are saying? I thought all these renewables were going to replace coal quite easily. All the cool countries are doing it.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:38 AM   #423
ginjawarrior
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
solar might be getting cheaper but your still going to have to carpet something like 110,000 square miles (arizona size) just to power Usa
ginjawarrior is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:42 AM   #424
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,719
Originally Posted by Zambo View Post
Yes i see the last 2 (numbers 8 and 9)

What about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 how do they look to you?

What about 6?


The present US government isn't in favour of any of those but on my travels internationally i am slowly seeing some move towards numbers 1, 2, 3 and 7
We can actually reverse Anthropogenic Global Warming. The Green New Deal has absolutely zero point zero chances of accomplishing that goal though, even if they took off the last two. I already explained the flaws. Read it again.

There are at least 6 plans that could possibly work, but the Green New Deal is not one of them
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:48 AM   #425
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,186
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
solar might be getting cheaper but your still going to have to carpet something like 110,000 square miles (arizona size) just to power Usa
Nobody is claiming that this is a small task. The claim is that it's worth doing in spite of it taking a lot of effort.

Also, the plan is to mix solar with hydro and wind (and I guess geothermal wherever that's applicable.)
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:49 AM   #426
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,186
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
We can actually reverse Anthropogenic Global Warming. The Green New Deal has absolutely zero point zero chances of accomplishing that goal though, even if they took off the last two. I already explained the flaws. Read it again.

There are at least 6 plans that could possibly work, but the Green New Deal is not one of them
Can you post a link to your favorite 3 of those plans?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 01:35 AM   #427
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
solar might be getting cheaper but your still going to have to carpet something like 110,000 square miles (arizona size) just to power Usa
Yes i think it is more practical to think of this country by country rather than USA trying to find enough land to power several countries. But some interconnection of national grids especially beteen smaller countries will help economise.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 02:07 AM   #428
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
We can actually reverse Anthropogenic Global Warming. The Green New Deal has absolutely zero point zero chances of accomplishing that goal though, even if they took off the last two. I already explained the flaws. Read it again.

There are at least 6 plans that could possibly work, but the Green New Deal is not one of them
I have read it again:

1. In the summary of 1 to 9 not allowing nuclear is not mentioned but I am sure that is stated in the more detailed plan. But it seems renewables would be ok to get rid of coal and oil which would be a good start.

2. Agreed

3. Perhaps some additional insulation in the roof space and double glazing would help.

4. Agreed it is encouraging that agriculture is included, but other ideas need to be added.

5. Agreed

6. I have no idea about this.

7. Agreed
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 02:22 AM   #429
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,930
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
From the FAQ, which is still posted on NPR's website:

"We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren't sure we can get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast..."

Now, it may be as others have said, that the goal is to get rid of the farts (or belches) and keep the cow. But if I told you I was going to get rid of my nagging wife, would you assume that I was going to convert her to nag-free?
Jesus, is English not your first language?

If I told you I wanted to get rid of polluting cars, does that mean I want to get rid of ALL cars?

If I told you I wanted to get rid of steam boats, does that mean I want to get rid of ALL boats?

If I told you I wanted to get rid of rotten apples, does that mean I want to get rid of ALL apples?

Getting rid of farting cows DOES NOT MEAN EXTERMINATING ALL COWS. One have to be either trolling, or literally being intentionally stupid if one really thinks that's what it means.


Read and learn

https://www.independent.ie/business/...-37370542.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKCN1MD151

And this one is especially interesting..

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...ttle-1.3156975

"Researchers at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, found the addition of less than 2 per cent dried seaweed to a cow’s diet could reduce their methane emissions by as much as 99 per cent.

The study builds on the experience of a Canadian farmer who discovered in 2012 that cattle eating wind-blown seaweed were not just more healthy than others, but enjoyed a longer mating cycle. Researchers Rob Kinley and Alan Fredeen subsequently confirmed the results as well as finding seaweeds and similar plants reduced methane emissions.

This was further substantiated by the Australian study, which was led by Prof of Aquaculture Rocky De Nys in collaboration with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. "
I repeat and double down on what I said earlier... Literally NO ONE is advocating the extermination of cows.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 12th February 2019 at 02:32 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 02:27 AM   #430
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,930
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
solar might be getting cheaper but your still going to have to carpet something like 110,000 square miles (arizona size) just to power Usa
I wonder how many square miles of rooftop there is in the whole of the USA.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:19 AM   #431
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,771
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Nuclear waste always seemed scarier to me because of the mutagenic possibilities. Plain old poison is bad enough but chromosome damage is maybe even scarier.
But that's just emotions talking. It's not more dangerous than other methods.

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
We will never NOT need the energy from coal-fired power plants? Is that what you are saying?
No, I said we'll _always_ need the energy. So using that logic we'll never get rid of the plants. We need to do that 25 years ago; more.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:51 AM   #432
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,584
I believe nuclear power has a bright future: new reactor designs can be meltdown-proof, making them cheaper and safer to operate.
Some designs can use nuclear waste as fuel, dramatically reducing their half-life.
Small-size designs are possible, making them useful for operating in disaster zones etc.
New reactors can also be build with inevitable decommissioning in mind right from the start.
Safe permanent storage of radioactive products is possible at a reasonable price.

BUT:
in the past, we have learned that permanent storage isn't really a good idea: it is much better to keep the waste accessible in case of problems with the storage location or new technologies for processing; dumping barrels of waste in the ocean, as is still common in some places, might not be the worst solution, as long as we can be sure that we can find them again, should we need to, and not have them drift into fishing grounds, as has happened on coasts of southern Europe.
We have no clear

On the other hand, we have a very clear idea how much it costs to build, run and decommission renewable energy projects.
So we are left with comparing a known cost to an unknown cost.
Guest what investors and utility companies are more comfortable investing in.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 04:07 AM   #433
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,321
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The point about ruining the economy is pretty obvious. Oh, the greenies like to pretend that we're going to march forward into a glorious, environmentally-friendly future together with a booming economy and jobs for all. It's pretty obvious that a serious carbon tax (which is going to be required, never mind that the GND holds off on recommending it for now) is going to have lots of negative effects on the economy. Goods will cost more to transport, which will mean increased prices on the store shelves. At the same time, people will have less money to spend due to the increased gas and other energy prices. Sounds like the mid-late 1970s all over again.
Obvious? No. It's not obvious. The USA borrowed like there was no tomorrow for WWII and experienced the biggest boom in it's history.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 04:09 AM   #434
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,321
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If climate change was taking place over a period of a few hundred million years (as it has previously), life might be able to adapt biologically through evolutionary change (as it has previously), but at the current rate of change, the temperature on Earth will be unlivable in a matter of a few decades, too fast for life to adapt.

There is absolutely zero chance we can adapt to it. We are at the beginning of the Earth's sixth mass extinction - we are causing it, and we are the only living creatures on the earth with the ability to prevent it. If we fail to do so, we WILL become victims of it.
We can adapt but we can't prevent. How does that work?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 04:20 AM   #435
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,771
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I believe nuclear power has a bright future: new reactor designs can be meltdown-proof, making them cheaper and safer to operate.
They're already very, very safe, except in Hollywood movies, and in Ukraine.

Quote:
in the past, we have learned that permanent storage isn't really a good idea:
Huh?

Quote:
dumping barrels of waste in the ocean, as is still common in some places
Wait, wait. Where are they dumping nuclear waste in the ocean?

Quote:
On the other hand, we have a very clear idea how much it costs to build, run and decommission renewable energy projects.
On a large scale? Do we?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 04:32 AM   #436
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

On a large scale? Do we?
1000MW is a sizeable power plant, not the largest by a long way but still large capacity. There are solar and wind power plants of this size. So yes construction and operation are proven.

Decommissioning is already carried out for coal fired power plants, not a major issue and i do not see wind or solar being significantly more difficult. Nuclear is the decommissioning issue.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 05:03 AM   #437
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
They're already very, very safe, except in Hollywood movies, and in Ukraine.



Huh?



Wait, wait. Where are they dumping nuclear waste in the ocean?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocea...ioactive_waste
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 05:04 AM   #438
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,719
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Can you post a link to your favorite 3 of those plans?
I'll do you better than that. This one was up and running in Australia and actually beginning to work until it was shut down and all the scientists at CSIRO fired and entire sections of the best climate and oceanic scientists of the world scattered to the winds. [1]That'll teach em to actually succeed.
1)FARMING A
CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTION


This next one is similar, but differs in that it doesn't contain a carbon market necessarily. It bases the motivation to implement the changes to be purely the additional benefits to economies, profits and increases to both primary and agricultural yields and the quality of life that bolsters. So it doesn't even necessarily need any government intervention at all in many cases, except just getting out of the way and letting it happen. In other countries it could need assistance from the government, but mostly in simply education. Teach them how to do it, then just let them do it! The politics is in just removing institutional and governmental barriers. Its downfall is that it is almost too easy and too much like a silver bullet, but requires literally almost every country in the world to agree to this management style on the majority of their land. That's fairly unlikely. Even when any action proven beneficial there will be significant pushback whenever we try to get cooperation from everyone. It's just human nature. And already here there has been significant pushback.
2) RESTORING THE CLIMATE THROUGH CAPTURE
AND STORAGE OF SOIL CARBON THROUGH
HOLISTIC PLANNED GRAZING


I really like some parts of this next one, and think certain other parts require an overly burdensome governmental oversight. But in general it is more comprehensive on the energy side, and less extensive on the sequestration side. It probably contains the least change overall because almost everything gets tweaked a little, but nothing completely eliminated. I just personally chaff at governments dictating so minutely into every detail of our lives, but I must say this one has probably the best chances so far. No doubt it is by far the most comprehensive plan.
3) Drawdown

The next one is a bill in Congress right now, and like the Green New Deal only applies to USA. It has the advantage of bipartisan sponsorship and support. It has the disadvantage of the same sort of socialist idealism infecting the plan as the Green New Deal, just more subtly. It basically sets up a carbon fee and dividend, with carbon sources paying a fee that gets pooled and then split equally by everyone in the country regardless of merit. All that would need to happen is change where the dividend gets paid, (those actually balancing the carbon cycle) and it would be brilliant bill. As it stands though it is still at least workable and at least doesn't grow government, being net zero revenue. Not my favorite, and not comprehensive, but a gazillion times better than the Green New Deal. It's a good start I guess. I personally think they saw what happened to the Aussies and took the wrong lesson from it.
4) Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act

The IPCC plan is pretty good actually. Fairly comprehensive and certainly science backed. It has the advantage of the most worldwide political support. Unfortunately to get that support I believe several important needs were fairly heavily diluted by compromise though. So rather than reversing AGW it can only mitigate and adapt to AGW. World civilization survives though, so the plan is good in that respect.
5) Adaptation and Mitigation

Then there is my own personal favorite as it pulls the best from all of these and leaves out the parts I personally don't think help. However, I could be somewhat biased in that assessment. Seeing as how this is my own plan!
6) Can we reverse global warming?

I promised you six and I gave you six. There are even more out there though. Maybe the best runner up involves a very large investment in Nuclear energy and multiple small scale hydroelectric plants at the "mill pond" scale rather than the huge mega hydroelectric we are used to, and a relatively smaller investment in solar, wind and geothermal. Nuclear being the large scale base load and the smaller localized renewables filling in the edges where applicable.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 12th February 2019 at 05:36 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 05:08 AM   #439
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,771
Originally Posted by Zambo View Post
Thank you for both answers.

That is despicable. I would think that just putting them in a warehouse somewhere or deep in the bedrock would be far safer.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 05:28 AM   #440
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,584
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
They're already very, very safe, except in Hollywood movies, and in Ukraine.
Yes, in the same way airplanes are safe: because we have made every error possible, and patches every reactor accordingly. This is very complicated and expensive, requiring highly trained specialists to operate a reactor safely. A meltdown-proof reactor would require fewer layers of safety and could be operated with fewer personell.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Huh?
Germany thought they had found a perfect salt mine, only to discover that water leaks in - it will take decades and billions to get the waste out again.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Wait, wait. Where are they dumping nuclear waste in the ocean?
Spain, Russia, China and others
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.