human actions, global climate change, global human solutions

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 66 of 111

Let's move on to your next bone-headed statement:

Quote:

---

Most people will wait until green energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy before they will switch.

---

This is not the crux of the argument. The question is whether or not proposed control measures WILL BE EFFECTIVE.

MANY potential control and mitigation measures have nothing to do with, and therefore would be unaffected by, fuel costs. I've already outlined more than a dozen, from reducing our military's world-straddling presence and constant foreign meddling to better forest management, better agricultural practices, urban cooling, environmental remediation, and general conservation (eg more efficient ACs, higher mandated vehicle mileage, better industrial motors etc.)

Limiting the scope to relative fuel price is unnecessarily and misleadingly restrictive. It's almost as if you're (*GASP!) leading to a pre-determined outcome.

Not that you would ever do that!


-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

And now, to your next boneheaded argument

Quote:

---

One by one, climate activists supported powering buildings with zero-emission appliances running on clean electricity.

---

Let me start out by repeating one very important fact:

ONE BAD FOREST FIRE YEAR UNDID 18 YEARS OF CALIFORNIA DECARBONIZATION. In other words, wildifire emitted EIGHTEEN TIMES the amount of greenhouse gases that were erduced in one year.

Focusing on whether or not people are burning nat gas in their homes and businesses is like worrying about the cockroach in the room and ignoring the 600-lb gorilla.

Aside from which, there are practical considerations like -
WHERE IS THIS 'CLEAN ENERGY' GOING TO COME FROM?
And how will the grid handle the increased load?

AFAIK California is nowhere near meeting the CURRENT load with 'clean energy'. Activists need to propose something other than magical thinking and hopium.



-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
FUN FACT: Wind Turbine blades are 100% non-recyclable . . .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

What does this have to do with your incredibly stupid statement?

Oh, NOTHING, you say??

---

It's as if you two are paid to be stupid by the fossil fuel industry.

---

Blah, blah, blah...

Try again. That's not an argument to anything I posted here, citing actual government websites that are currently up during the Biden* Administration*.

Refute any of these following truths on their own merit, or SHUT THE FUCK UP BITCH.




FUN FACT: Wind Turbine blades are 100% non-recyclable, consisting each of 35 tonnes of plastic and fiberglass which are either thrown into a landfill to be somebody else's problem another day, or are incinerated, which not only is bad news for future CO2 emissions, but as a bonus are going to end up adding to the insane amount of microplastics that you already have coating the inside of your lungs and are already found littering pretty much every cell in your body.

As of 2022, we have a recorded total of 70,800 wind turbines in the US alone, each consisting of 3 blades.

So, not including all of the blades that have already been buried or burned, we have a combined total of 14,868,000,000 lbs of non-recyclable future waste product that's mostly going to end up in your lungs and contribute to global warming once they reach the end of their life cycle.

Oh... and don't forget that every single tonne of glass fibers produced in the first place results in a carbon footprint of approximately 1.7-2.2 tonnes. So, not including the blades we've already buried or burned, the blades on the existing 70,800 wind turbines currently active in America alone required us to put 12,637,800 to 16,354,800 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere before they even made their first rotation.

Clean energy indeed!



Well boys...

Smoke if you got 'em!




Sources:

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/can-wind-turbine
-blades-be-recycled

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-turbines-are-contained-us-wind-turb
ine-database

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/30003WOK.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&
amp;Client=EPA&Index=1991+Thru+1994&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C91thru94%5CTxt%5C00000009%5C30003WOK.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-sustainable-sustainablemodern-const
ruction-materials-okpara


--------------------------------------------------

How you do anything is how you do everything.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, I was merely pointing out your stupidity ("we must capture carbon dioxide at rate ten times ..blah blah blah") and your attempts to distract away from it by changing the topic. You're STILL trying to distract away from it by name-calling!


Just admit it was a boneheaded statement and move on.


And then we can start discussing your OTHER boneheaded statements!

---

You Trumptards are all the same, imagining you have a point when you literally know nothing at all and can't learn. By the way, all the emojis you use, Signym, show you are as dumb as Ramaswamy, the coke-snorting salesman wanting to be Trump's VP:

“The climate is always changing!” So goes a popular refrain from climate deniers who continue to claim that there’s nothing special about this particular moment. There is no climate crisis, they say, because the Earth has survived dramatic warming before.

Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy recently exemplified misconceptions about our planet’s climate past. When he asserted that “carbon dioxide as a percentage of the atmosphere is still at a relative low through human history,” he didn’t just make a false statement (carbon dioxide concentrations are the highest they’ve been in at least 4 million years). He also showed fundamentally wrong thinking around the climate crisis.

What threatens us today isn’t the particular concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or the precise temperature of the planet, alarming as those two metrics are. Instead, it’s the unprecedented rate at which we are increasing carbon pollution through fossil fuel burning, and the resulting rate at which we are heating the planet.

Consider the warming event that paleoclimatologists point to as the best natural comparison for the rapid greenhouse-driven trend we’re seeing now. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum happened 56 million years ago, roughly 10 million years after the demise of the dinosaurs, which itself was caused by climate change (a massive asteroid impact event led to a global dust storm and, in turn, rapid cooling). The PETM warming resulted from an unusually large and rapid injection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions in Iceland. Global temperatures increased by approximately 10 degrees Fahrenheit in as little as 10,000 years, rising from an already steamy baseline of 80 degrees Fahrenheit possibly up to a sauna-like 90 degrees Fahrenheit.

That warming rate of about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit per century is extremely rapid by geological standards. But it’s still roughly 10 times slower than the warming today.

Extinctions followed another warming period in our more recent past, when the last ice age ended about 18,000 years ago. Driven by Earth’s changing orbit relative to the sun, and boosted by a heightened greenhouse effect as warming oceans gave up their carbon dioxide in the same way an open bottle of warm soda loses carbonation, the planet warmed by about 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the subsequent 8,000 years.

That rate of warming — which, again, was about 10 times slower than the warming today — was rapid enough to wipe out entire species. Gone were the magnificent woolly mammoths and mastodons, giant ground sloths and saber-toothed cats that had roamed the plains of North America. A combination of climate change and overhunting by paleo-Americans did them in. A few of them got stuck in tar pits and are preserved — some at the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles.

In the fall of 2017, I participated in a climate change forum at the tar pits museum, which is at the center of those ancient pools of asphalt — the viscous, evaporated remains of crude oil that seeped to the surface from deep below. I couldn’t help but see further irony there: Crude oil from beneath Earth’s surface threatens us today because we’re ensnared by it politically rather than physically.

Paleo-humans survived the end of the ice

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

That's what I thought, bitch.

--------------------------------------------------

Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second: Blah blah blah

---

Yes, I know.... at one time the CO2 was 10x higher than today, and temperature were far higher, and "the world" survived. BUT WE WOULDN'T.

Is today's concentration and temperature rise a "crisis"?

Well, it's not good. But even if .. no, ESPECIALLY IF... it's a crisis, this isn't the time to go frittering around with half-baked responses, "solutions" that require "people" who have no agency - many of whom are living on the edge of poverty- to give up what little that have (and which will never gain wide acceptance), a purely ideological or profit -motivated agenda, fucking around with ideas that are only acceptable to the top 0.1%

How about tackling REAL waste (like war?) What about remediating the environment? Making products that last a lifetime, or can be repaired, and stop advertising the "need" for "the latest", useless product?

Yanno, you could hand out a BILLION solar stoves, and it wouldn't mitigate one space joyride, so stop joyriding into space. Ban private jets. Stop pushing EVs (the latest fad) on people which a) won't work in extremely cold climates and b) may- or may not- be a net positive for the environment and c) would probably overload grid capacity anyway.

I noticed, SECOND, that you're all about stomping on great masses of powerless "insignificant" people but you really, really hate to cross the rich and powerful. How about empowering people so they can shape the world for THEIR needs, and their children's children's needs, and not the needs of VCs and speculators and creditors and the other PsTB that puppeteer the world?

Ya gotta be open-minded, SECOND. Consider all of your options. Tackle the big problems with big payoffs first. Be effective.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Majority Of Carbon Offset Projects Globally Are "Likely Junk"

Analysis found that 39, or 78%, of the 50 environmental projects were categorised as “likely junk or worthless” due to one or more “fundamental failing"

The “vast majority” of environmental projects most commonly used within the voluntary carbon market (VCM) to offset greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions seem to have “fundamental failings” and cannot be relied upon to tackle global warming, according to a joint investigation from the Guardian and non-profit climate watchdog Corporate Accountability.

The investigation analysed the top 50 emission offset projects, selected because they have sold the most carbon credits within the global VCM, and found that most of them exaggerate climate benefits and underestimate the potential harm caused by the project’s activity.

MORE AT
https://www.power-technology.com/news/report-majority-carbon-offsets-j
unk-or-useless/.

---

This isn't the first, second, or third time I've posted something about the "carbon market". I knew it was bunk when I read a paper for work fifteen or more years ago that it was just a giant scam. And when I saw the technical difficulties the LA air pollution agency had in implementing their own credit trading market, with honesty and motivation, and the speculation and corruption it fostered (people trading credit futures, or buying up credits to corner the market) I knew at its core the whole "pollution credit" concept was a failure.

And you know who LIKES the 'market-based' concept?
BUSINESS and scam artists.


-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

EPA’s Illegal Power Play
The agency’s ambitious gambit to reorganize America’s electricity will almost certainly be struck down.
By Mario Loyola
September 24, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA last year was a historic defeat for the Environmental Protection Agency. Not only did the Court rule that the 2015 Clean Power Plan, President Obama’s signature climate regulation, was unconstitutional; it also dramatically limited EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA) moving forward.

That left the agency with two courses of action. It could take its lumps and focus on proposing regulations with a high chance of surviving federal court review. Or it could stake everything on a final desperate attempt to decarbonize America’s power sector, and go for the win in keeping with President Biden’s commitment to net zero carbon emissions.

On May 23, 2023, EPA chose the latter, proposing carbon emissions standards for power plants far more ambitious than those struck down by the Supreme Court last year. Like other EPA climate regulations, the proposed emissions standards under Section 111 of CAA are not designed to reduce emissions from standard power plants, but rather to force a rapid transition away from reliable and affordable sources of dispatchable power—natural gas and coal—to intermittent renewables and new kinds of power plants that don’t even exist yet. Together with EPA’s electric vehicle mandates, the proposed rule would be a train wreck for the American electricity grid and society as a whole, endangering economic competitiveness and energy security while yielding no measurable climate benefit.

Those hoping for a dramatic finish to Biden’s climate action will not be disappointed: the proposal has so many legal vulnerabilities that it would be a miracle if the rule survives federal court review.

Under the proposed rule, which President Biden hopes to finalize by next summer, large new or modified natural gas plants and existing coal plants would be required to virtually eliminate carbon emissions by 2038, at the latest. Under Section 111(a) “New Source Performance Standards” (NSPS), large new or modified combined-cycle natural gas plants, which currently supply roughly 30% of the nation’s electricity, would be required to achieve close to zero carbon emissions, either by implementing carbon capture and storage (CCS) to capture 90% of carbon emissions by 2035, or by switching from natural gas to 98% “green” hydrogen co-firing by 2038. In addition, under Section 111(d) emissions guidelines, existing coal plants, which currently supply more than 20% of America’s electricity, would be required to virtually eliminate carbon emissions by implementing CCS by 2035.

Interestingly, EPA declined to promulgate NSPS for coal plants because, as it explains, there are no plans to build any new coal plants in the U.S. It declined to promulgate emissions guidelines for existing natural gas plants out of concern for feasibility. Even more interesting, when EPA sent the proposed rule to the White House for regulatory review under E.O. 12866, it contained no emissions guidelines for existing plants at all, and therefore would not have applied to coal plants at all. The White House reportedly sent it back to EPA with orders to put a Section 111(d) rule for existing coal plants in the proposal. This suggests that EPA itself is not very confident in the ability of the Section 111(d) rule to survive court review.

Section 111 of CAA, the same provision at issue in West Virginia v. EPA, authorizes EPA to mandate “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.”

Section 111 sets a high bar, especially after West Virginia v. EPA. The proposed rule falls woefully short. It has at least three

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME