' The truth - We will go extinct, very soon.'
POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Sunday, May 18, 2025 05:23
VIEWED: 65274
PAGE 58 of 68
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.
Quote:About 20 million RUSSIANS died fighting the Nazis. And that's a fact!
Originally posted by WHIZZY:
Totally worth it- WISHY
AND WHIZYY doubles-down - for the umpteenth time!
You can't make this kind of crazy up.
THUGGER, SLOPPY, MUSHY ... anything to say about your team member?- KIKI
You belong to a team. It's why facts don't mean anything to you, only winning. I post facts. Fact, estimates are 72 million people died during a fascist attempt to conquer the world during world war two.- THUGR
Quote:So since then when this about "winning" and "losing"? Isn't this supposed to be a DISCUSSION?
I'd add that unless you argue facts you can't win. - THUGR
And where does that put GSTRING's constant lies and WISHY's lunatic rantings? THOSE certianly aren't "facts", are they? Or are you disavowing them as any sort of "team member" of yours, because that's what it sounds like to me: You're distaning yourself from them.
*****
Anyway THUGR I agree with you, we should discuss facts. If we all did that I think we'd be a lot farther ahead.
Back to our original topic.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep, twenty million Russians were killed in WW11. Less than the number of Russians Stalin' killed, but nonetheless true. Funny how my number reflects the worlds losses and sig's is only concerned with Russia's.
Dos ve donya comrade
T 
Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
. Funny how my number reflects the worlds losses and sig's is only concerned with Russia's.
Yeah, but some of those losses weren't the "right colors" for her to care about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Indeed. Sorry for the sideways direction.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is about climate change. Not Wishy's various mental illnesses.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
I think the thread is also about other ecosystem-threatening progressions: habitat loss, resource consumption, invasive species and other extinction promoting processes.
It's all related to overpopulation, but overpopulation isn't the ONLY problem: The United States only represents about 4% of the world's population but about 17% of the world's energy consumption. And considering that we've offshored our manufacturing, the energy consumption related to production FOR AMERICAN CONSUMPTION is probably higher ... possibly bringing the total into the realm of 20-25%.
Considering that so many people in the USA have such poor living standards ... worse than Cuba ... we must be terribly wasteful with everything: food, transporation, heating and cooling, electronics etc.
I come back to the one area where we're vastly different from every other nation in the whole world, and that's our military spending. It takes a lot of energy to steam our ships around the world, and fly our military jets all over. The USA military has been tagged as the SINGLE LARGEST user of energy in the entire world. If we could reduce our mulitary footprint to a tenth of what it currently is ... yanno, enough to credibly defend our borders ... just think of all of that evergy savings.
Quote:... enough to fuel approximately 42 MILLION cars each year*.
The United States Department of Defense is one of the largest single consumers of energy in the world, responsible for 93% of all US government fuel consumption in 2007 (Air Force: 52%; Navy: 33%; Army: 7%. Other DoD: 1%).[1] In FY 2006, the DoD used almost 30,000 gigawatt hours (GWH) of electricity, at a cost of almost $2.2 billion. The DoD's electricity use would supply enough electricity to power more than 2.6 million average American homes. ... The Department of Defense uses 4,600,000,000 US gallons (1.7×1010 L) of fuel annually
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_mili
tary
Not only that, but think of the energy consumed in producing all of those ships, planes, missiles, tanks, vehicles etc etc etc. that could be saved, or re-purposed into building infrastructure.
BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO AGAINST THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL/DEEP STATE COMPLEX IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THIS.
I think the other "big ticket" item would be a CARBON TAX, and a hefty one at that, something that would raise the effective price of oil to about $100/bbl and doubling the price of fuel. Thinking about all of the things that would positively effect: Our economic, energy, land-use and environmental policies. One of the areas where the USA wastes a lot of fuel is transportation, not just peple driving from home to work but also goods moving from China (or elsewhere) across the ocean to our ports and then across the USA and food being shipped from Argentina (or CA) across the oceans. Fuel and transportation are so cheap that it is cost effective to make a part here, ship it to China for chrome plating, and ship it back. How is that even possible?
If the cost of transportation was significantly higher that would make distributed manufacturing (engine from Spain, transmission from China, seats from Mexico) less cost-effective. It would make exurban living and ginormous vehicles too expensive. Arguments about CAFE standards would go poof! Electricty (beyond a baseline) would be more expensive. Energy-intensive agriculture/ factory farming would have to take a step back. Even plastics would be more costly to produce, because petroleum is the feedstock for plastics manufacturing.
It's such a brain-dead, simple approach to reducing energy consumption that it should have been MANDATED in the Paris Climate Accord, but nobody will touch it with a ten-foot pole and you will find no discussion of it in the M$
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
TULSI FOR PRESIDENT!!!
At least she's got the right idea about reducing the military to a more sane size.
As you know, I have 2 priorities. Imo, in order of time-pressing importance, they're 1) that we don't blow ourselves up and 2) that we don't burn ourselves up. And I've been following the democratic debates pretty closely.
It's extremely unclear to me if any of them have seriously thought about what it would take to actually address climate change, and then rejected the various options as totally politically inexpedient (given tptb that actually run things), or if they're so blinded by 'the way things have always been' that the ideas just never came up in the first place.
As for House democrats, they're too enmeshed with the coup; and Senate democrats are trying to be invisible.
Anyway - yes, we need to get rid of our overseas military presence, and strip it down to a home-soil defense-only force.
It's extremely difficult to get figure for the number of cars on the road in the US - the figures I find are for cars, motorcycles, trucks, busses etc, collectively called 'vehicles'. WIKI says that 'most' of the registered vehicles are passenger vehicles, and puts the number at 263.6M in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States , STATISTA puts the number of passenger vehicles at 111M in 2017. BIG DIFFERENCE! https://www.statista.com/statistics/192998/registered-passenger-cars-i
n-the-united-states-since-1975/
Going with STATISTA's numbers, reducing the US's military fuel use would be like removing a third of the cars on US roads today.
Per capita energy usage
There's no indication as to whether or not the US figures include the military (though I've been told that generally they don't).
The largest per capita users are generally countries that are really large, or really cold, or really rich, or some combination.
I've read elsewhere that one of the reasons Australia is such a high energy user is simply transport across the very large country. Canada and Russia are of course very large and also very cold. The US is at least as large as Canada, though not as cold - theoretically we shouldn't be using quite as much per capita. Off the top of my head, I would think we should be more like Australia's ~55 koeg v the US's ~70 koeg in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_
per_capita
Anyway - simply having a very large country seems like one factor in high energy consumption.
Perhaps one of the ways to mitigate that would be to have internal regions that are more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing and over-all production (like food), to reduce transport costs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
TULSI FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Yeah, we know...Russians for Tulsi already...
Even Hillary knows that one...
It's not gonna work a second time. No one here, INCLUDING THE RETHUGS NOW!!! wants anything to do with a Russian backed player.
Not that she had a chance in hell to begin with.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
She NEVER did, you dolt.
Flies shit.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Anyway - yes, we need to get rid of our overseas military presence, and strip it down to a home-soil defense-only force.
It's extremely difficult to get figure for the number of cars on the road in the US - the figures I find are for cars, motorcycles, trucks, busses etc, collectively called 'vehicles'. WIKI says that 'most' of the registered vehicles are passenger vehicles, and puts the number at 263.6M in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States , STATISTA puts the number of passenger vehicles at 111M in 2017. BIG DIFFERENCE! https://www.statista.com/statistics/192998/registered-passenger-cars-i
n-the-united-states-since-1975/
Going with STATISTA's numbers, reducing the US's military fuel use would be like removing a third of the cars on US roads today.
Per capita energy usage
There's no indication as to whether or not the US figures include the military (though I've been told that generally they don't).
The largest per capita users are generally countries that are really large, or really cold, or really rich, or some combination.
I've read elsewhere that one of the reasons Australia is such a high energy user is simply transport across the very large country. Canada and Russia are of course very large and also very cold. The US is at least as large as Canada, though not as cold - theoretically we shouldn't be using quite as much per capita. Off the top of my head, I would think we should be more like Australia's ~55 koeg v the US's ~70 koeg in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_
per_capita
Anyway - simply having a very large country seems like one factor in high energy consumption.
I would appreciate more "granularity" ... a LOT more! Why, for instance, should the per-capita energy consumption in the EU vary from country to country?
If the USA was broken up into smaller "countries", would the per capita energy usage decrease, even tho the distance traveled is the same?
Quote:It seems that way to me. Although breaking up food production (and manufacturing) into more self-sufficient pieces would require replication of equipment, which might be less energy-efficient in the short run since you would need to make extra items.
Perhaps one of the ways to mitigate that would be to have internal regions that are more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing and over-all production (like food), to reduce transport costs.
It looks to me like energy usage is more directly correlatable to living standards. CHINA is a large nation, and also manufacturing-intensive, but their per-capita is lower.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I've read elsewhere that one of the reasons Australia is such a high energy user is simply transport across the very large country. Canada and Russia are of course very large and also very cold. The US is at least as large as Canada, though not as cold - theoretically we shouldn't be using quite as much per capita. Off the top of my head, I would think we should be more like Australia's ~55 koeg v the US's ~70 koeg in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_
per_capita
Anyway - simply having a very large country seems like one factor in high energy consumption.
Quote:In terms of the data, there were problems getting what I thought were good numbers. I had a fairly difficult time getting global numbers, in order to make comparisons. In this particular set of data, the range of per-capita use on upper end was huge, which might obscure important differences. And finally, the most recent comprehensive numbers I could find were from 2015. I feel like a lot as happened in the interim - countries going off of nuclear power, multiple large nat gas pipeline projects being completed, the birth and slow death of the fracking boom, and so on. So when it comes to trying to interpret these numbers one might need to go back to 2015 and what those countries were like back then.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I would appreciate more "granularity" ... a LOT more! Why, for instance, should the per-capita energy consumption in the EU vary from country to country?
Some things I felt I could explain - Great Britain now gets most of its wealth from financialism, and not manufacturing, and it's a small country, so its per capita consumption would be lower, compared to Germany, for example. https://www.npr.org/2018/01/03/572901119/how-germany-wins-at-manufactu
ring-for-now When it comes to select countries, I'd read about the huge energy use for AC in a lot of the (wealthy, desert) oil producing nations, and the high energy use in cold countries for heating. I'd also read about the high energy costs in Australia due to transportation. Other things I have no idea - Chile for instance has highish per capita use, but isn't particularly large (though it is long), wealthy, or cold; and it's not a manufacturing hub.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If the USA was broken up into smaller "countries", would the per capita energy usage decrease, even tho the distance traveled is the same?
Quote:
Perhaps one of the ways to mitigate that would be to have internal regions that are more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing and over-all production (like food), to reduce transport costs.
Quote:As for living standards being a major (only?) predictor of per capita energy consumption, I think Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan might be large exceptions that need explaining (though their inclusion in top-tier consumption might also be due to that huge span of that particular range).
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It seems that way to me. Although breaking up food production (and manufacturing) into more self-sufficient pieces would require replication of equipment, which might be less energy-efficient in the short run since you would need to make extra items.
It looks to me like energy usage is more directly correlatable to living standards. CHINA is a large nation, and also manufacturing-intensive, but their per-capita is lower.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME