human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 98 of 111
SECOND, what is tbe purpose, the reason, for trying to limit climate change?
Is it to "save the planet"? Save the whales? Save the coral reefs, the nematodes, the birds, bees, the trees, and all of the creatures of the world?
Or is it to save the planet TO KEEP IT LIVABLE FOR HUMANS?
That's a critical difference in POV.
Now, personally, I'm of the second persuasion.
I believe we need to preserve our planet as a form of ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST. I'm convinced that we need to preserve biodiversity - instead of PRESIDING OVER ANOTHER EXTINCTION EVENT AS WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING- because biodiversity and redundancy (many species occupying similar but not exactly the same niche) keeps our environment humming along, robust and able to absorb various local, regional, and global shocks.
So, how do we best preserve our environment?
Well, first of all, REDUCE WASTE, starting with the biggest resource wasters: the extremely wealthy, war, and built-in obsolescence. AFA population growth, the most effective way to reduce population growth is to educate girls and women, give them legal rights, options besides making babies, and access to birth control.
I've posted dozens and dozens of EFFECTIVE actions, and pencil-whipped their potential carbon dioxide savings, leading to a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and increased carbon dioxide storage. (Close coal fired power plants and convert to nat gas, sustainable farming, better forest management, reducing the DOD budget by 90%, outlawing private jets, pushing rooftop solar panels for sunny states etc etc)
There is no technological barrier to any of those.
Their biggest problem is, they step on the toes of the rich and powerful.
Well, let's get going. Instead of these carbon capture/storage schemes that are going nowhere (they won't work) and other high tech mirages, let's start doing what we can do.
And if they're politically unviable bc the rich, who spend so much time alternately wringing their hands about climate change and scolding "us" for using too many resources, block them ... well, they're not really concerned about climate change at all.
Are they?
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is already a plan for the United States. But it is NOT your plan. Maybe Signym can convince Trump? Whoops! Trump is not open to anybody's plan. Trump promised to cancel all plans.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Are they?
Biden just unveiled America’s ambitious new climate goal. Trump will assuredly undo it
By Ella Nilsen | Thu December 19, 2024
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/19/climate/biden-new-climate-goal-paris-tr
ump-climate/index.html
The ambitious new target aims to cut US climate pollution to 61-66% below 2005 levels by 2035.
The US will only be able to cut pollution 24-40% below 2005 levels in the next decade if Trump successfully repeals Biden’s climate law and unravels key regulations, according to the nonpartisan climate think tank Rhodium Group.
It is unclear whether Trump will be able to convince congressional Republicans to kill Biden’s clean energy law, which is pouring billions of dollars and thousands of jobs into GOP districts.
Trump has said he intends to drill for more oil and gas, shred federal climate regulations and seek to overturn Biden’s clean energy law.
A new target is required every five years by the international Paris Agreement, which Trump has promised to once again pull the US out of.
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
There are at least two things where Trump and I disagree, and energy/ climate change/ environment is one.
You elitist, anti-humans only have yourselves to blame. If you (and that means you too, SECOND) had only advocated practical, humane policy changes instead of draconian "make the rich richer" schemes, you might have gotten buy-in from a majority.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Buy-in? The only buy-in that will happen is solar and wind because both cost much less than fossil fuel. Price drives everything. But get Americans to use less energy? That ain't gonna attract any voters except cartoon characters such as Lisa Simpson when she is old enough.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There are at least two things where Trump and I disagree, and energy/ climate change/ environment is one.
You elitist, anti-humans only have yourselves to blame. If you (and that means you too, SECOND) had only advocated practical, humane policy changes instead of draconian "make the rich richer" schemes, you might have gotten buy-in from a majority.
Perhaps Trumptards in Texas are different than in your state, but from where I am standing, few of Trump's voters believe climate change will have any significant affect in the next few decades. Some think it can't happen because God will take control of the climate and prevent change. For those Texans who don't believe God will intervene if the change comes at all, eventual change will be in the far future, so why do anything new now? Why change long-standing habits of using as much energy as you want? Why impoverish Texas, which prospers from selling fossil fuel?
Trump perfectly adjusted to that attitude. That's how the winner won. Trump repeated back to his kind what they wanted to hear about themselves: you are the BEST! Don't ever change! You should have all the energy you need! And fossil fuel is where the future is going! Light the world on fire and dance in the glorious light of the flames.
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
The newest Clean Jobs Midwest report shows how the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) gave clean energy jobs in the state an influx of employees, pushing the total past 73,000 and counting.
With Milwaukee ranking seventh in the Midwest for clean energy employment and a workforce deeply involved in projects like energy-efficient lighting and heat pump installations, Wisconsin positions itself as a key player in the region's clean energy transition.
This boom in employment has been growing at nearly four times the pace of Wisconsin's overall economy while investing billions into renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Globally, an International Energy Agency report found that the energy sector added over 2.5 million jobs in 2023, bringing the total to 67 million globally.
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/wisconsin-clean-energy-jobs
-investment-innovation/
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
When will electric airliners make sense?
Dec 14, 2018 article, six years ago but it is probably still true.
Electric aircraft only make sense economically with fuel at about $100/barrel or higher.
(The global average jet fuel price week ending 13 Dec 2024 is $89.23/bbl.
https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/ )
How all of this would affect air travel is very sensitive to the capacity of future batteries. The authors estimate that an effective range of about 1,100 kilometers would allow electric aircraft to cover 15 percent of the total air miles (and corresponding fuel use) and nearly half the total flights.
Upping the range to 2,200 kilometers would allow 80 percent of the global flight total to be handled by electric aircraft.
The one thing that's holding it back is technology, as batteries simply aren't close to the needed capacities. While we can't rule out a radical advance in battery chemistry, current rates of change mean we'll have to wait for more than 30 years before air travel no longer means a roar of jet engines.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/when-will-electric-airliners-m
ake-sense/
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
When will electric airliners make sense?
When pigs fly.
Seriously, this isn't a question of money, as SECOND seems to think. It's a question of battery technology. When batteries have the same energy density per pound as jet fuel, then it'll happen.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, they don't. It very much depends on where you are. For us, with our very high electricty costs, it makes sense. But solar north of about 37deg N makes no economic sense. Windmills in windless areas? Heat pumps where winter temps reach 15F? You're joking, right?
SIGNY: You elitist, anti-humans only have yourselves to blame. If you (and that means you too, SECOND) had only advocated practical, humane policy changes instead of draconian "make the rich richer" schemes, you might have gotten buy-in from a majority.
SECOND: Buy-in? The only buy-in that will happen is solar and wind because both cost much less than fossil fuel.
Quote:No, it doesn't. Our fearless leaders waste a fuckton of money on stupid shit, like wars that don't affect our security. What drives our policies is PROFIT, and, specifically, how much $$$ our pols can pocket from their corporate sponsors.
SECOND: Price drives everything.
Quote:Which Americans, son? The homeless? The ones who can't afford AC or a more fuel efficient car? The ones who have to decide between heat and eat?
SECOND But get Americans to use less energy? That ain't gonna attract any voters except cartoon characters such as Lisa Simpson when she is old enough.
Yanno who won't reduce their energy usage?
Try wresting private jets from the hands of the wealthy.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Methane emissions in the Permian Basin fell significantly in the past year, but the incoming Trump Administration's policies threaten to reverse this progress.
Dec 23, 2024, 6:59 AM CST
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Will-Trump-Policies-Slow-Methane
-Emissions-Cuts-in-the-Permian.html
The Biden Administration has enacted rules on reducing emissions from oil and gas operations, including a recently finalized methane fee that has been opposed by the industry.
Last year, emissions from the Permian fell by 26%, according to a recent study by S&P Global and Insight M Inc. Methane intensity declined even more, by over 30%, as absolute emission volumes fell while Permian oil and gas production continued to rise, the study found.
In a sign of what the energy industry can expect, Trump last month picked a shale boss, Chris Wright, chief executive of Liberty Energy, as his nomination to lead the Department of Energy.
However, analysts say that the companies are now unlikely to swerve from the path of cutting emissions as they continue to promote their efforts in producing more oil and gas with fewer emissions.
“They’ve made commitments to their shareholders, they’ve set a plan in place, they’ve allocated capital,” Kevin Birn, an analyst at S&P, told the Financial Times, commenting on the findings of the study on the Permian methane emissions trends.
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
another year of climate records broken
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME