Greta Thunberg to the UN

[TBoneTX 43,417]

Still want to know whether farting outdoors harms the environment more than does farting indoors.

[Dashinka 23,360]

11 hours ago, Boiler said:

Wind generators btw are a major killer of birds

That and those concentrated solar power stations, but in those cases, they just cook the birds, not dismember them.

[Dashinka 23,360]

11 hours ago, Unidentified said:

Yes, we all need to reduce consumption as it increases emissions everywhere and not just in China. Yes, it is economically cheaper. But cheaper is not always better and in this case is horrible. Hopefully China will start to take the climate more seriously. 

The Amish way!  We need to go back to the 1800's, give up our devices and tear down the cities.  Time to get back to nature!  Seriously though, considering we only have ten years left, not sure China will be doing anything to help anytime soon.  Btw, more expensive is not always better either, and in many cases it is downright horrible, just ask the folks of Baotou.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

[Unidentified 2,930]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The Amish way!  We need to go back to the 1800's, give up our devices and tear down the cities.  Time to get back to nature!  Seriously though, considering we only have ten years left, not sure China will be doing anything to help anytime soon.  Btw, more expensive is not always better either, and in many cases it is downright horrible, just ask the folks of Baotou.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

I am not saying expensive is better either. I am saying we just need to do what is necessary for future generations to be able to live on this planet.. 

 

I also hope that when you guys say 10 years you know that it might be less than that. And no, it's not us people having 10 years left on this earth. We have 10 years to possibly do something about the warming. However, that estimate doesn't include feedback loops etc. The fact that we have huge amounts of methane being released from melting permafrost is definitively troublesome. 

[Unidentified 2,930]

20 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

That and those concentrated solar power stations, but in those cases, they just cook the birds, not dismember them.

Again, extremely small amounts of birds compared to cell and radio towers. If we continue with business as usual we won't have any birds to worry about because of pollution and the changes to their habitats due to the changing climate. 

[Dashinka 23,360]

13 hours ago, Unidentified said:

The only issues I have with nuclear is how long they take to build and the potential for disaster due to extreme weather events. Europe was having issues during their heatwaves this summer.  Once water going through the plant reaches a certain temperature they have to be shut down. Another issue is that with increase in droughts there might be less water to be used by the plants. 

Why?

So what you are saying is pretty much the same argument narrative used by many regarding nuclear.  It is in fact the same argument used by big oil and big coal.  Go back to the article @theresaL posted, it is very informative, and there is an imbedded link showing that wind is responsible for 1,000 human deaths per 1 trillion kWhr which is low compared to coal, but way higher than nuclear which is 0 human deaths per 1,000 kWhr.  The biggest issue with nuclear is how to handle the spent fuel.  There are some options, but many, especially government types, don't want to address these items.  I liken nuclear to a car fire, when folks see a car burning on the side of the road, they expect the fuel tank is going to explode (thanks for that myth Hollywood), just as folks think anything nuclear is going to create a mushroom cloud.  Nuclear and hydro (where available) are the best options for base and peaking loads, mix in a little intermittent wind and solar and you have a good mix.

 

From the linked article:

 

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.

 

13 hours ago, Boiler said:

So is anybody against Nuclear and if so why?

I am fine with it.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[Dashinka 23,360]

3 hours ago, Unidentified said:

I am not saying expensive is better either. I am saying we just need to do what is necessary for future generations to be able to live on this planet.. 

 

I also hope that when you guys say 10 years you know that it might be less than that. And no, it's not us people having 10 years left on this earth. We have 10 years to possibly do something about the warming. However, that estimate doesn't include feedback loops etc. The fact that we have huge amounts of methane being released from melting permafrost is definitively troublesome. 

I am sorry, that is where I lose it with these supposed climate scientists.  It seems we get a 10 year prediction every year for the past 50 years, and that comes from flawed models that can't even come close to modeling the global climate of this world.  If those are the climate scientists Ms. Thunberg are listening too, she needs to do some additional research. 

 

It is interesting that you did not address the massive pollution in China from all these "Green" technologies.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[TBoneTX 43,417]

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The Amish way!  We need to go back to the 1800's

No horse-drawn carriages, because horses fart, greenhouse pollution man!   

[TBoneTX 43,417]

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

That and those concentrated solar power stations, but in those cases, they just cook the birds

Duck, duck, GOOSE!

(Breakfast, lunch, dinner)

[Unidentified 2,930]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I am sorry, that is where I lose it with these supposed climate scientists.  It seems we get a 10 year prediction every year for the past 50 years, and that comes from flawed models that can't even come close to modeling the global climate of this world.  If those are the climate scientists Ms. Thunberg are listening too, she needs to do some additional research. 

 

It is interesting that you did not address the massive pollution in China from all these "Green" technologies.

I have addressed the pollution situation in China in probably 4 or 5 posts now. 

 

50 years ago it was to prevent something else. Now it's about stopping a 1.5C temperature increase. We've already failed to stop it from reaching 1C so we have .5C left. 

[Unidentified 2,930]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So what you are saying is pretty much the same argument narrative used by many regarding nuclear.  It is in fact the same argument used by big oil and big coal.  Go back to the article @theresaL posted, it is very informative, and there is an imbedded link showing that wind is responsible for 1,000 human deaths per 1 trillion kWhr which is low compared to coal, but way higher than nuclear which is 0 human deaths per 1,000 kWhr.  The biggest issue with nuclear is how to handle the spent fuel.  There are some options, but many, especially government types, don't want to address these items.  I liken nuclear to a car fire, when folks see a car burning on the side of the road, they expect the fuel tank is going to explode (thanks for that myth Hollywood), just as folks think anything nuclear is going to create a mushroom cloud.  Nuclear and hydro (where available) are the best options for base and peaking loads, mix in a little intermittent wind and solar and you have a good mix.

 

From the linked article:

 

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.

 

I am fine with it.

If that is the same argument that big oil and coal are using then I am surprised they haven't shut down their business and gone for greener alternatives since they are contributing to the climate crisis and the worsening of extreme weather events. 

[Dashinka 23,360]

1 hour ago, Unidentified said:

If that is the same argument that big oil and coal are using then I am surprised they haven't shut down their business and gone for greener alternatives since they are contributing to the climate crisis and the worsening of extreme weather events. 

Like I said earlier, big oil does not see as big a threat from the “green” tech since this has a need for the plastics that come from crude oil.  In fact, I believe big oil is a big investor in renewable energy since it keeps the pumps pumping.

 

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/04/big-oil-is-investing-billions-in-renewable-energy.aspx?Cid=DaWo3I&utm_campaign=kkuRul&utm_source=41dSOe&utm_medium=igW2X2&utm_content=7ijBsz&utm_term=J3R9ce

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Unidentified said:

I have addressed the pollution situation in China in probably 4 or 5 posts now. 

 

50 years ago it was to prevent something else. Now it's about stopping a 1.5C temperature increase. We've already failed to stop it from reaching 1C so we have .5C left. 

You did not address the China pollution issue as it related to the “green” energy technology.  Of course that is only one example, we could also look at the cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

9 hours ago, Unidentified said:

I am not saying expensive is better either. I am saying we just need to do what is necessary for future generations to be able to live on this planet.. 

 

I also hope that when you guys say 10 years you know that it might be less than that. And no, it's not us people having 10 years left on this earth. We have 10 years to possibly do something about the warming. However, that estimate doesn't include feedback loops etc. The fact that we have huge amounts of methane being released from melting permafrost is definitively troublesome. 

They have been saying "10 years" since the 70s.  Which decade is it, really?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Unidentified said:

I have addressed the pollution situation in China in probably 4 or 5 posts now. 

 

50 years ago it was to prevent something else. Now it's about stopping a 1.5C temperature increase. We've already failed to stop it from reaching 1C so we have .5C left. 

What about these temperature swings?  Quite a lot more than the 1.5° C I keep seeing thrown around here.

 

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

[luckytxn 2,263]

15 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Still want to know whether farting outdoors harms the environment more than does farting indoors.

Filtering occurs indoors...