human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 33 of 111
Quote:You are far too impressed with vocabulary, just as every lawyer I have known and every philosopher I have read is impressed with what they do best, which is talk and write. The lawyers and philosophers denigrate as inferior what they are worst at, which are all the things engineers do for a living.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, the framers of the Constitution, which- you may recall- is just a bunch of words, didn't chnage the world? and laws... the're jus words? And the discovey AND NAMING of the elements an subatomic paricles, the concept AND NAMES of "lever", "current", "voltage", "energy" "heat", "DNA" and "cell" didn't change th world?
You can't transmit communicate discoveries and knowledge to others for them to build on unless you can attach a name to it. WORDS greatly shape how we see the world, in fact WHAT we see. (A neurologist wanted to see how long it would take his daughter to discover the color "blue" if he and his wife never used the word. IIRC she was six years old before she noticed there was an as yet unnamed color.)
People get into all kinds of trouble using wods they don't nderstand and haven'teven defined for themselves: Freedom, love, rights, human ... they don'y know where the defintion begins and where it ends.
So, what is capitalism, and how is it different from monopolism, financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
If legislatures want to solve the excess CO2 problem in the atmosphere (and I doubt legislatures do want a solution because it will cost money, just as sewage treatment plants cost money) the legislatures should hire some engineers to write the legislation and rules in a way that engineers can understand what the legislature wants.
By the way, somebody had to pay for the engineers and their construction projects. If nobody pays, CO2 will rise and rise until it kills all.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A more relevant topic:
Quote:that is, CARBON...
Cover Crops
Cover crops can be broadly defined as any non-cash crop grown in addition to the primary cash crop.
These crops have the potential to increase soil organic matter
Quote:
and fertility, reduce erosion, improve soil structure, promote water infiltration, and limit pest and disease outbreaks. There are numerous benefits to cover cropping, though, as with any management technique, there are tradeoffs and limitations that must be considered. In many situations cover cropping can lead to a decreased reliance on fossil fuels and improved agricultural productivity.
https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag/cover-crops
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's lovely and utopian when one farmer out of a thousand does this, but if the other 999 farmers do NOT, CO2 will keep rising until it kills all. If you think most farmers will voluntarily do right, you will be wrong.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
A more relevant topic:Quote:that is, CARBON...
Cover Crops
Cover crops can be broadly defined as any non-cash crop grown in addition to the primary cash crop.
These crops have the potential to increase soil organic matterQuote:
and fertility, reduce erosion, improve soil structure, promote water infiltration, and limit pest and disease outbreaks. There are numerous benefits to cover cropping, though, as with any management technique, there are tradeoffs and limitations that must be considered. In many situations cover cropping can lead to a decreased reliance on fossil fuels and improved agricultural productivity.
https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag/cover-crops
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And I'm not either of them. But as a retired chemist, I understand that the words that I used to make my living were all important and tightly defined.
by SIGNYM:
So, the framers of the Constitution, which- you may recall- is just a bunch of words, didn't chnage the world? and laws... the're jus words? And the discovey AND NAMING of the elements an subatomic paricles, the concept AND NAMES of "lever", "current", "voltage", "energy" "heat", "DNA" and "cell" didn't change th world?
You can't transmit communicate discoveries and knowledge to others for them to build on unless you can attach a name to it. WORDS greatly shape how we see the world, in fact WHAT we see. (A neurologist wanted to see how long it would take his daughter to discover the color "blue" if he and his wife never used the word. IIRC she was six years old before she noticed there was an as yet unnamed color.)
People get into all kinds of trouble using wods they don't nderstand and haven'teven defined for themselves: Freedom, love, rights, human ... they don'y know where the defintion begins and where it ends.
So, what is capitalism, and how is it different from monopolism, financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
SECOND :You are far too impressed with vocabulary, just as every lawyer I have known and every philosopher I have read is impressed with what they do best,
So we didn't use the word "mass" when we wanted to say "density", or "liquid" when we needed to say "fluid", or "alcohol" when the word we were looking for was "amine".
And I bet when you were an engineer you didn't use "power" when you meant "temperature" and "exchange" when you meant "pressure".
You're far too careless with words you don't understand bc you don't respect the concepts behind them. So why should I bother to read what you write?
Oh yeah, that's right ... I rarely do.
Maybe if you were more disciplined with your definitions you'd make more sense, not just to us but to yourself as well.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which is why there should be a subsidy tied to increasing soil carbon content .. or at least planting cover crops ... to encourage tthe practice.
Originally posted by second:Quote:That's lovely and utopian when one farmer out of a thousand does this, but if the other 999 farmers do NOT, CO2 will keep rising until it kills all. If you think most farmers will voluntarily do right, you will be wrong.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
A more relevant topic:Quote:that is, CARBON...
Cover Crops
Cover crops can be broadly defined as any non-cash crop grown in addition to the primary cash crop.
These crops have the potential to increase soil organic matterQuote:
and fertility, reduce erosion, improve soil structure, promote water infiltration, and limit pest and disease outbreaks. There are numerous benefits to cover cropping, though, as with any management technique, there are tradeoffs and limitations that must be considered. In many situations cover cropping can lead to a decreased reliance on fossil fuels and improved agricultural productivity.
https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag/cover-crops
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
You're all hot to trot for the government to spend money to discover a "clean jet fuel" that may never come to frutition. why would you be against helping farmers out, except that you're not invested in farming?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The clean jet fuel problem can be "solved" by shutting down aviation in the USA. See how easily the CO2 emissions could go to zero with just the passage of one law?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Which is why there should be a subsidy tied to increasing soil carbon content .. or at least planting cover crops ... to encourage the practice.
You're all hot to trot for the government to spend money to discover a "clean jet fuel" that may never come to frutition. why would you be against helping farmers out, except that you're not invested in farming?
Farmers' problems can be solved by Americans fasting until CO2 drops to safe levels. Agricultural subsidies will let farmers' fields lay fallow for a few years while absorbing CO2. Plow the crops under to increase carbon in the soil. If the crops are harvested, the food will become more CO2 after people digest the food. Instead, America can import food from Canada and Mexico. It is the perfect solution to too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Alternatively, high-tech solutions to excessive CO2 exist that don't require hundreds of millions of Americans to change how they live. These solutions allow aviation to continue in the United States without inventing hydrogen-burning jet engines or electric motors to turn airplane propellers. And millions of farmworkers can continue to farm however incompetently they please without ever learning new techniques. Almost forgot that the high-tech solutions also allow Americans to get fat eating like gluttons.
https://www.google.com/search?q=agricultural+subsidies
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The clean jet fuel problem can be "solved" by shutting down aviation in the USA. See how easily the CO2 emissions could go to zero with just the passage of one law?
Originally posted by second:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Which is why there should be a subsidy tied to increasing soil carbon content .. or at least planting cover crops ... to encourage the practice.
You're all hot to trot for the government to spend money to discover a "clean jet fuel" that may never come to frutition. why would you be against helping farmers out, except that you're not invested in farming?
Farmers' problems can be solved by Americans fasting until CO2 drops to safe levels. Agricultural subsidies will let farmers' fields lay fallow for a few years while absorbing CO2. Plow the crops under to increase carbon in the soil. If the crops are harvested, the food will become more CO2 after people digest the food. Instead, America can import food from Canada and Mexico. It is the perfect solution to too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Alternatively, high-tech solutions to excessive CO2 exist that don't require hundreds of millions of Americans to change how they live.
Cover crops don't require anyone to change how they live, either. EVs would require more change than methane powered vehicles, bc people have to worry about range, charging stations, and changing out a $12,000 battery every 5-7 years. And, yanno, MOST people don't fly regularly. I think the thing YOU'RE worried about is your ginormous fancy truck and your private jet.
I've spent way too much time on you. So why don't you ponder the definition of capitalism for a while?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fossil Fuel Industry Seeks to Expand Free Speech for Corporations and Limit It for Citizens
by Amy Westervelt / September 16, 2022 at 12:41PM
https://theintercept.com/2022/09/16/fossil-fuel-industry-climate-free-
speech/
Reps. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Katie Porter, D-Calif., probably didn’t plan for their committee hearings to run at the exact same time this week, but the hearings sure were talking to each other.
In her Committee on Natural Resources hearing, Porter highlighted the role PR firms play in blocking climate policy. Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, and his selected witness, Amy Cooke, CEO of the conservative John Locke Foundation, expressed concern that preventing companies and their hired PR firms from spreading misinformation about climate change would have a chilling effect on free speech.
Meanwhile, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, chaired by Raskin, focused on free speech attacks against environmentalists, digging into the fossil fuel industry’s attempts to curb citizens’ speech rights via strategic litigation and laws that criminalize protest. Taken together, the two are a perfect illustration of the industry’s First Amendment strategy: expand free speech for corporations, curb it for citizens.
Raskin’s free speech hearing focused on two key tactics: the increased filing of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs — defamation suits aimed at penalizing citizens or citizen groups for exercising their First Amendment rights — and the proliferation of so-called critical infrastructure bills, which pile on fines and criminal sentences for those caught trespassing or vandalizing near pipelines, power plants, railroads, or other infrastructure. These anti-protest bills were a direct industry backlash to the Standing Rock protests in 2016 and 2017. Starting with a law passed in Oklahoma in 2017, they proliferated with the help of the industry group American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which drafts and disseminates pro-corporate model legislation for adoption by state governments. Seventeen states now have critical infrastructure laws on the books, with several more considering proposals.
“SLAPPs and anti-protest bills are really two sides of the same coin,” said Deepa Padmanabha, deputy general counsel for Greenpeace and a witness at Raskin’s hearing. “They’re tactics used by the same corporate actors to quash dissent. They’re pushing legislation to silence us, to criminalize our critiques through anti-protest bills. And they’re also filing SLAPP suits to silence dissent.”
Greenpeace has dealt with both. Greenpeace USA activists were arrested in 2019 under Texas’s felony critical infrastructure law for unfurling banners on a bridge, which temporarily blocked shipping. The goal of the action was to highlight the connection between the oil industry and climate change.
Greenpeace is engaged in active litigation in a couple of SLAPP suits too. In one, Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, sued the organization for its role in the Standing Rock protests. The suit was initially filed in federal court and invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, a law designed to prosecute organized crime. “Energy Transfer was alleging that our advocacy work to uplift Indigenous voices at Standing Rock constituted organized crime,” Padmanabha said.
Because RICO allows for damages to be tripled if a defendant is found guilty, Greenpeace faced a $1 billion fine. Losing that suit would have had a truly chilling effect on free speech. A federal judge threw out the case, but Energy Transfer filed again in North Dakota (minus the RICO charge), a state that doesn’t have an anti-SLAPP law on the books.
“SLAPPs and anti-protest bills are really two sides of the same coin.”
Anti-SLAPP laws allow defendants a quick way to get SLAPP suits dismissed, minimizing the time and money spent on meritless cases. Currently, 31 states and the District of Columbia ha
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe I should check your claim? You will not be replacing a battery if Tesla is an example:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Cover crops don't require anyone to change how they live, either. EVs would require more change than methane powered vehicles, bc people have to worry about range, charging stations, and changing out a $12,000 battery every 5-7 years. And, yanno, MOST people don't fly regularly. I think the thing YOU'RE worried about is your ginormous fancy truck and your private jet.
I've spent way too much time on you. So why don't you ponder the definition of capitalism for a while?
Quote:https://www.howtogeek.com/830513/how-much-does-it-cost-to-replace-a-te
Tesla will even cover the battery replacement cost if charge capacity falls below 70% during the warranty period—something that’s also very rare. EV batteries tend to retain most of their charge capacity even hundreds of thousands of miles into their lifespan.
In fact, Tesla claims their EVs can retain 90% of their charge capacity even 200,000 miles in. Data from UK research firm NimbleFins seems to back that claim up—the company studied over 500 models, with those at the 150,000-mile mark retaining 90% charge capacity and those over 200,000 still holding about 80% capacity.
sla-battery/
This is going completely beyond what you can understand, but the dumping of hundreds of gigatonness of CO2 required a major industrial effort over more than two hundred years. That dumping will not be undone by a million farmers, or even all farmers, planting cover crops to withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere. It will require another major industrial effort to reduce CO2.
As of 2018, CO2 constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) which corresponds to approximately 3210 gigatonnes of CO2. Since there are 8 giga-humans, that is a lot of tonnes of CO2 per human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Regenerative grazing
Cattle Farmer Says New Livestock Grazing Method Could Save Grasslands, Reverse Desertification
https://www.theepochtimes.com/cattle-farmer-says-new-livestock-grazing
-method-could-save-grasslands-reverse-desertification_4733016.html
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME