-
Climate Denial
-
Yes, America should not take the lead on hurting its own economy. China will laugh itself into the leading role in the world quickly.
You should look into modern nuclear reactor designs. They are essentially impervious to meltdown and have little/no waste – some recycle the waste.-
You dont know the science, do you? Only the denier talking points.
Send me these links to impervious reactors & how waste is recycled, the little that there is in these miracle reactors.
-
[link]https://www.terrapower.com/[/link]
[link]https://www.nuscalepower.com/[/link]
[link]https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/[/link]
[link=https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx]https://www.world-nuclear…-nuclear-reactors.aspx[/link]
[link=https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/02/27/136920/the-new-safer-nuclear-reactors-that-might-help-stop-climate-change/]https://www.technologyrev…p-stop-climate-change/[/link]
Do you want more? -
Quote from Frumious
You dont know the science, do you? Only the denier talking points.
Send me these links to impervious reactors & how waste is recycled, the little that there is in these miracle reactors.
You’re kidding right?
[link]https://www.terrapower.com/[/link]-
How many molten salt reactors exist now providing power?
-
Or how long before one comes on line?
-
But back to primary question, if global warming does not exist or is only beneficial or has no effect at all, what’s the point of replacing fossil fuels? Why develop a solution to a problem that does not exist? Or is only a good.
And assuming MSR’s are the solution to replacing fossil fuels, how does that protect the economy and society that renewables destroy? It looks like you are just replacing renewables with fission reactors instead of renewable sources. How does that protect the economy and society? -
Probably awhile. There is a ton of resistance to any form of nuclear power.
But there is a lot of amazing stuff and advancements going on. At this point, its Californias greatest hope.
[link=https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/versatile-test-reactor]https://www.energy.gov/ne…versatile-test-reactor[/link]
-
Renewables are extremely destructive to the environment. They are also insufficient to meet societys energy needs.
Adequate energy supply sustained economic growth. Modern society requires electricity
-
Renewable are destructive to environment but untested future designs of nuclear is not?
Explain how.
If MSR’s hold up to proselytizers’s promises, I’m all for it. But so far it’s a dream less than the Green New Deal for addressing global warming now.
I mean let’s face it, removing regulations to improve fossil fuel efficiency is the rule of this administration. Cars with 50+ MPG? Deregulate that regulation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Renewable are destructive to environment but untested future designs of nuclear is not?
Explain how.
Yes to the first question.
No to the request. Read a book.-
99% of scientist say one thing
Uhhhhhhhh Im going with 1% of deniers
But Im
Not Q-Anon really Im
Not-
We arent denying climate change. We are denying that we have to do radical things in this country. Like I said, even if we spent 30 trillion on the gnd and were the epitome of clean energy, it wouldnt change a lick of anything to the world climate and will have only harmed us.
You think nuclear fission and new reactors are unproven? Look at the stuff in the gnd.
Also, we have to switch away from fossil fuels eventually because they are a finite resource.
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
We arent denying climate change. We are denying that we have to do radical things in this country. Like I said, even if we spent 30 trillion on the gnd and were the epitome of clean energy, it wouldnt change a lick of anything to the world climate and will have only harmed us.
You think nuclear fission and new reactors are unproven? Look at the stuff in the gnd.
Also, we have to switch away from fossil fuels eventually because they are a finite resource.
You mean anthropogenic global WARMING, don’t you? And a few posts back you wee saying the warming is only beneficial, if it affects weather at all that is.
As for the rest of the world, that’s is a denier argumetn without substance. China is developing renewables which includes MSR’s, we are not. India will be very happy to buy from the supplier, China, because we have nothing to offer except more fossil fuels which India wants to get away from as do European countries since they do not want to be beholden to Russia for fossil fuels as 1 example.
We are arguing to maintain the horse and buggy over the horseless carriage as if the rest of the world prefers horses and buggies.
-
-
-
Quote from radgrinder
Quote from Frumious
Renewable are destructive to environment but untested future designs of nuclear is not?
Explain how.
Yes to the first question.
No to the request. Read a book.
You don’t know, do you. All you can do is repeat denier talking points without substance.
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from radgrinder
Quote from Frumious
Renewable are destructive to environment but untested future designs of nuclear is not?
Explain how.
Yes to the first question.
No to the request. Read a book.
You don’t know, do you. All you can do is repeat denier talking points without substance.
Nah. I think that you’re a loser on whom the effort would be wasted.-
Quote from radgrinder
Nah. I think that you’re a loser on whom the effort would be wasted.
Yeah, typical. If you can’t understand you can pretend the others don’t.
News flash, “renewables” includes MSR’s as being argued by cub. You are undermining your own argument.-
I never said the warming was [b]only[/b] beneficial. I asked you what you thought the net was because there are some positive benefits.
-
From 2013 but still relevant.
[link=http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2013/10/podcast-thorium.html?m=1]http://physicsbuzz.physic…dcast-thorium.html?m=1[/link]
-
Okay?
Look, it’s clear that you’re part of the climate change religion folks and that’s fine but it doesn’t warrant us continuing this discussion.-
Quote from Cubsfan10
Okay?
Look, it’s clear that you’re part of the climate change religion folks and that’s fine but it doesn’t warrant us continuing this discussion.
As opposed to the denier religion of “Nothing to see here! Move on!”
-
[link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-win-friends-and-bamboozle-people-about-climate-change/]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-win-friends-and-bamboozle-people-about-climate-change/[/link]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Renewables surpass coal in US:
[link=https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Renewables-Overtake-Coal-In-US-In-Electricity-Generation.html]https://oilprice.com/Late…ricity-Generation.html[/link]
[size=”3″]RENEWABLES GENERATE MORE ENERGY THAN FOSSIL FUELS IN EUROPE FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER[/size][/h1] [link=https://www.euronews.com/living/2020/08/14/renewables-generate-more-energy-than-fossil-fuels-in-europe-for-the-first-time-ever]https://www.euronews.com/…or-the-first-time-ever[/link] -
California like most of the west has most of its forests controlled by the Federal Forest Service, not by the state.
So Trump should get his rake & help out the way he advised last year.
& yes, Smokey the Bears days are long over.
And there needs to be strong regulations about where & how developers are allowed to build. And utilities need to keep their wires in repair & designed for high fire zones.-
Questions:
– what was the deadliest wildfire in US history ?
– what was the single largest wildfire in US history ?-
Quote from fw
Questions:
– what was the deadliest wildfire in US history ?
– what was the single largest wildfire in US history ?Add to those questions, has the frequency of fires increased?
Is there as much water & snow as in the past, meaning are areas drier or wetter than has been the normal history?
The Great Fire of 1910 included 78 wildfires that burned 3 million acres in Idaho, Montana, and Washington, killing 86 people. The Miramichi Fire burned 3 million acres in Maine and New Brunswick, killing 160 people.
Fires now have burned 5 million acres so far.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/us/oregon-fires-california.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/us/oregon-fires-california.html[/link]
-
Im overall disappointed by this thread and its misleading title.
Who denied there is a climate? Frumi?
-
Climate? Did someone claim there was no climate grinder? Did I claim anyone claimed there was no climate?
Your complaint make zero sense.
You are misleading.
-
-
[link=https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen]https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen[/link]
Big money putting out fires that don’t need to be put out in California. There is zero political will to proactively deal with this stuff in California.-
Quote from over-caffeinated
Big money putting out fires that don’t need to be put out in California. There is zero political will to proactively deal with this stuff in California.
Dont disagree. Why havent controlled fires been burned?
But climate warming is still a factor amplifying everything.
Now climate change has made it hotter and drier than ever before, and the fire weve been forestalling is going to happen, fast, whether we plan for it or not.
And climate warming has also made the West Coast drier in reduced rain and snow.As for why? You Propublica article answers that as well, culture and good business.
The overarching reason is culture. In 1905, the U.S. Forest Service was created with a military mindset. Not long after, renowned American philosopher William James wrote in his essay The Moral Equivalent of War that Americans should redirect their combative impulses away from their fellow humans and onto Nature. The war-on-fire mentality found especially fertile ground in California, a state that had emerged from the genocide and cultural destruction of tribes who understood fire and relied on its benefits to tend their land. That state then repopulated itself in the Gold Rush with extraction enthusiasts, and a little more than half a century later, it suffered a truly devastating fire. Three-thousand people died, and hundreds of thousands were left homeless, after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and attendant fires. The overwhelming majority of the destruction came from the flames, not the quake. Small wonder Californias fire ethos has much more in common with a field surgeon wielding a bone saw than a preventive medicine specialist with a tray full of vaccines.
More quantitatively and related fire suppression in California is big business, with impressive year-over-year growth. Before 1999, Cal Fire never spent more than $100 million a year. In 2007-08, it spent $524 million. In 2017-18, $773 million. Could this be Cal Fires first $1 billion season? Too early to tell, but dont count it out. On top of all the state money, federal disaster funds flow down from the big bank in the sky, said Ingalsbee. Studies have shown that over a quarter of U.S. Forest Service fire suppression spending goes to aviation planes and helicopters used to put out fire. A lot of the air show, as he calls it, happens not on small fires in the morning, when retardant drops from planes are most effective, but on large fires in the afternoon.This whole system is exacerbated by the fact that its not just contracts for privately owned aircraft. Much of the fire-suppression apparatus the crews themselves, the infrastructure that supports them is contracted out to private firms. The Halliburton model from the Middle East is kind of in effect for all the infrastructure that comes into fire camps, Beasley said, referencing the Iraq war. The catering, the trucks that you can sleep in that are air-conditioned
-
“Dont disagree. Why havent controlled fires been burned?”
Very politically unpopular bordering on toxic. Very litigious state be it environmentalists or just folks who want to sue for “lung damage” or other special interest groups. But honestly, all Cali had to do was not be aggressive in putting out fires and let things burn naturally and probably this would have all/mostly been avoided. Mismanagement isn’t just not starting controlled burns.
Climate change, whether you buy it or not, it really just a side-show here, a distraction if you will, so politicians can claim to be doing something while actually doing nothing. Let’s say we all buy 100% into climate change and do whatever it takes to fix it ASAP. How is that going to fix forest fires happening now or even 10 years from now? It isn’t. California is still going to have to get it’s collective thumb out of it’s @$$ and start fixing problems.-
Weve developed all this for 40 years, none of can get an overnight fix, even if controlled burns are initiated after these fires are brought under control.
All needs efforts to reverse & after 40+ years, there is no such thing as a quick fix.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lots of things that go into this. Marked decreases in scheduled and salvage logging, much of that due to onerous environmental requirements under the guise of protecting ‘the california condor’, the ‘spotted owl’ and ‘water quality’. When one looks closer, neither of these stated objectives holds up, but the end result are large stands of dead timber and an overgrown understory. Add to that californians obsession to build their houses right into the trees, and the results are predictable. At this point, the california forests are so screwed up, you can’t even carry out controlled burns as the understory is so choked up that any controlled burn would run right into the crowns. The forests that are burning are with few exceptions not ‘old growth’ forests. They are timber plantations, some of them on private lands, most of them on USFS and BLM property. 50 years of poor management practices coming home to roost.
And smokey bear has nothing to do with putting out naturally caused fires. He is the mascot of preventing man made wildland fires.-
Yeah I was going to leave all that under “special interest groups” screwing things up in the courts.
Unintended consequences of not letting nature take its course. Holy crap I think I just came up with the bumper sticker for 2020.-
I cant believe Frumi thinks there isnt a climate.
-
Well if you would believe Biden and his once every other day 20 minute teleprompted press events represent a viable candidacy you would believe just about anything at this point.
-
Good to know none of the reasons for the fires are due to global warming and drought. All the fires are due to environmentalists protecting endangered animals and the Forest Service not managing forest litter well by allowing litter to accumulate over a century. This also holds true for for Oregon? And Washington? And Arizona and New Mexico and Colorado and Utah and Alaska since August? The long reach of the spotted owl protections extend into burning Siberian tundra? All of these areas just require people with rakes to clean up litter as suggested by Trump?
That’s all it takes to account for 3 million acres burned in California, 1 million acres in Oregon, 800,000 acres in Washington for a total of almost 7 million acres and still counting just in these 3 states.
The excuses have run out as fires have started and spread outside of the spotted owl territory. Good to know global warming has nothing to do with any of it. Besides, global warming is just another hoax. Trump has said so, so it must be true. (Has TRump ever spouted anything but nonsense and lies?)
[link=https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/16/wildfire-resources-firefighters-california-washington/5814398002/]https://www.coloradoan.co…washington/5814398002/[/link]
[link=https://www.fortmorgantimes.com/2020/09/14/writers-on-the-range-these-fires-will-happen-again-and-again/]https://www.fortmorgantim…appen-again-and-again/[/link]-
The liberal rag, WSJ:
[link=https://m.wsj.net/video/20200831/090120wildfirescience2/hls/manifest-hd-wifi.m3u8]manifest-hd-wifi.m3u8[/link]
The video points out that fires are not a local problem but are worldwide, including in Siberia.
[link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-california-towns-fire-protection-plans-hit-red-tape-then-it-burned-to-the-ground-11600335002]https://www.wsj.com/artic…the-ground-11600335002[/link]
California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to the Camp Fire with a slew of directives, including fast-tracked authority for 35 thinning projects to protect 200 communities. Cal Fire said some of the projects had helped slow fires including one in Butte County completed last December.
The Berry Creek projects languished as the Butte County Fire Safe Council struggled to gain landowner approvals for the thinning, a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. One of the strictest such laws in the nation, CEQA makes it easy for local residents and interest groups to oppose construction and development projects.
To help move the Lake Madrone thinning, which was planned for 54 acres, Butte County Fire Safe Council officials decided to split that environmental review from the one for the evacuation routes because most landowners had signed on, said Calli-Jane DeAnda, executive director of the Butte County Fire Safe Council.
It took 17 months to get the final go ahead from Cal Fire in March. Then a new problem hit: the coronavirus pandemic, which Ms. Bethune said put some of that work on hold.
After approval for the plan to create fire breaks along the evacuation roads came in July, Ms. DeAnda said her group had hoped to start both projects this fall and complete them within a month.
We were just waiting on the contractor to get started, she said.
-
The climate is not a river in Egypt, Frumi. Its a real thing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Good to know none of the reasons for the fires are due to global warming and drought. All the fires are due to environmentalists protecting endangered animals and the Forest Service not managing forest litter well by allowing litter to accumulate over a century. This also holds true for for Oregon? And Washington? And Arizona and New Mexico and Colorado and Utah and Alaska since August? The long reach of the spotted owl protections extend into burning Siberian tundra? All of these areas just require people with rakes to clean up litter as suggested by Trump?
That’s all it takes to account for 3 million acres burned in California, 1 million acres in Oregon, 800,000 acres in Washington for a total of almost 7 million acres and still counting just in these 3 states.
The excuses have run out as fires have started and spread outside of the spotted owl territory. Good to know global warming has nothing to do with any of it. Besides, global warming is just another hoax. Trump has said so, so it must be true. (Has TRump ever spouted anything but nonsense and lies?)
[link=https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/16/wildfire-resources-firefighters-california-washington/5814398002/]https://www.coloradoan.co…washington/5814398002/[/link]
[link=https://www.fortmorgantimes.com/2020/09/14/writers-on-the-range-these-fires-will-happen-again-and-again/]https://www.fortmorgantim…appen-again-and-again/[/link]
-
-
I thought we had an agreement not to believe Russian propaganda. Are they the ones who told you the climate wasnt real, Frumi?
-
Does anyone remember acid rain?
-
Point being?
-
Whatever happened to it? I thought our faces were supposed to be melting off every time it drizzled by now?
Also, hows the ozone hole over the Arctic?
Frumi, these things existed at one time and are related to the climate which, contrary to your objections, also exists.
What do you have to say for yourself and why are your opinions invalidated so routinely?
-
Quote from radgrinder
Whatever happened to it? I thought our faces were supposed to be melting off every time it drizzled by now?
Also, hows the ozone hole over the Arctic?
Frumi, these things existed at one time and are related to the climate which, contrary to your objections, also exists.
What do you have to say for yourself and why are your opinions invalidated so routinely?
What’s your questions? Don’t you know? Are you trying to make some sort of point?
Acid rain was cut by amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970 in 1990 for one and retiring coal plants in the Midwest, a primary driver of acid rain and lawsuits against power companies producing the acids in their exhaust. They were in violation of the 1970 clean Air Act & their 1st way around the violation was to built higher chimneys pushing the smoke higher into the atmosphere to be carried to the Northeast states, killing a lot of lakes in the Northeast as the ph for the rain could be as low as 4.
Acid rain did not just mysteriously disappear like COVID is supposed to. They were caused by people and mitigated by regulations. It still exists but less so. As long as we burn fossil fuels that put sulfur and nitrous oxide into the air we will have acid rain.
In the U.S., the [link=https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-highlights-1990-amendments]Clean Air Act of 1990[/link] targeted acid rain, putting in place pollution limits that helped [link=https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends]cut sulfur dioxide emissions 88 percent[/link] between 1990 and 2017. Air-quality standards have also driven U.S. [link=https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/nitrogen-dioxide-trends]emissions of nitrogen dioxide[/link] down 50 percent in the same time period. These trends have helped [link=https://www.vpr.org/post/uvm-study-spruce-trees-are-recovering-acid-rain-years-after-tighter-pollution-controls#stream/0]red spruce forests in New England[/link] and [link=https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2016/dec/northeast-lakes-recovering-acid-rain-may-give-trout-refuge-climate-change]some fish populations[/link], for example, recover from acid rain damage. But recovery takes time, and soils in the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada have only recently [link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soils-start-comeback-after-acid-rain-damage/]shown signs of stabilizing nutrients[/link].
[link=https://www.britannica.com/science/acid-rain/History]https://www.britannica.co..ience/acid-rain/History[/link]
And what about the ozone hole over the Arctic? The holes, Arctic and Antarctic are caused by man made ozone depleting chemicals that have been put into the atmosphere.
What’s the question?-
Are the ozone holes worse these days? Do you deny their existence? You cant deny everything!
-
What are you talking about?
-
Im just thankful that the Green New Deal happened in time to stop acid rain and shrink the ozone holes. Those were big problems, and we had to sacrifice a lot of jobs to accomplish these environmental goals, but we did it thanks to the Green New Deal.
Stop denying this and the climate Frumi…your dog whistles for an oppressive Gaia-denying hoax war dont work here.
-
You are certainly a certified Troll. That is, “certified” and a certified troll.
I’m old enough to remember when you were always a troll.
-
-
-
-
-
-
we haven’t seen the sun very well in Ohio all week due to smoke in the atmosphere.
-
-
-
-
Why cant you answer the question?
-
You haven’t answered any of my questions.
What are you talking about re acid rain or ozone holes in Antarctica and the Arctic.
Are you dyslexic? I apologize then for being so impatient since you have such difficulty with your disability.-
The climate is real Frumi. Stop denying it.
-
[link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-sign-executive-actions-climate-change-n1255814]Biden to sign executive actions on climate change[/link]
-
Based on a Twit by Ted in Sept 2016,
Ill believe in climate change when Texas freezes over!
I assume we have a new reality convert.
-
biological sex denial
i wonder why Frumi didn’t make that thread
you don’t even need bad models or lies or have to be a physician to understand how repulsive these ideas are, with their language just so dumb and irresponsible-
You made a bet and lost
Pay up
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22291183/skeptic-covid-vaccine-climate-change-denial-election-fraud]Vox[/link]:
[h1]The danger of the new skepticism[/h1] [b]Question everything, right? is the new mantra for some. But social echo chambers have propelled healthy skepticism into surreal terrain. [/b]
That notion of a healthy skepticism persists. But Americans increasingly display only a temperamental skepticism, says [link=https://www.kurtandersen.com/]Kurt Andersen[/link], author of [i]Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire A 500-Year History[/i][i].[/i] Its skepticism as an instinct or reflex, he says, instead of empirically based doubt. In this paradigm, asking questions is enough. The hard work of evaluating evidence and acting when it proves sufficient is no longer required.
It sounds so much more fair-minded and scientific [to be a skeptic] than to be a denier, says [link=https://leemcintyrebooks.com/]Lee McIntyre[/link], a research fellow at Boston Universitys Center for Philosophy and History of Science and the author of [i]Post-Truth[/i]. But, he adds, the problem is this: Theyre actually not skeptics, theyre actually quite gullible.…
There is reason to think that many so-called skeptics arent experiencing doubt at all. Instead, says Robbie Sutton, a social psychologist at the University of Kent who studies belief in conspiracy theories, studies have shown that people who question scientific conclusions are often motivated by a range of religious, economic, political, and personal convictions.
Evolution skepticism, for example, is more common among people who have strong beliefs about the relationship between God and humans. Climate change skepticism, by contrast, may be camouflaging resistance to climate action: In one [link=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-44347-002]2014 study[/link], Republicans expressed less skepticism about climate change when they were presented with free market solutions like technological innovation compared to traditionally liberal solutions like emissions restrictions. [b]This wasnt climate skepticism, the researchers concluded, but solution aversion.[/b][/QUOTE]
-
The models are a farce, the predictions have all been wrong, but muh science
You guys are a joke, you don’t even know what science is, or the scientific method is anymore. A person born with a penis can change medical realities for you by just talking out loud. You all are sick.
-
-
[link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/reversal-oil-gas-lobby-embraces-climate-focused-price-carbon-n1262056]In reversal, oil and gas lobby embraces climate-focused price on carbon
[/link]
The top oil and gas [link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/biden-s-epa-review-manipulation-science-under-trump-n1262005]industry[/link] lobby group on Thursday endorsed putting a federal price on carbon dioxide emissions, a reversal designed to show seriousness in addressing [link=https://www.nbcnews.com/climate-in-crisis]climate change[/link].
The decision by the American Petroleum Institute, whose membership includes oil giants such as ExxonMobil and Chevron, ends the group’s long-standing opposition that helped sink cap-and-trade legislation just over a [link=https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/summers-last-half-year-end-century-rcna436]decade[/link] ago.
It comes as the Biden administration works to identify the most effective and politically feasible ways to drastically reduce U.S. emissions of heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming.
[/QUOTE]
-
[link=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/557794-trump-dismisses-climate-change-calls-on-biden-to-fire-joint-chiefs]https://thehill.com/homen…n-to-fire-joint-chiefs[/link]
Biden says the Join Chiefs told him that Climate Change is the largest threat to America:
“This is not a joke. You what the Joint Chiefs told us the greatest threat facing America was? Global warming.”
___________
Trump —
Biden just said that he was told by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Climate Change is our greatest threat. If that is the case, and they actually said this, he ought to immediately fire the Joint Chiefs of Staff for being incompetent!
________________________
[link=https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/10/top-general-pressed-biden-remark-about-climate-changes-threat-us.html]https://www.military.com/…changes-threat-us.html[/link]
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley-
Climate change is a threat. Climate change has significant impact on military operations, and we have to take it into consideration. Climate change is going to impact natural resources, for example. It’s going to impact increased instability in various parts of the world. It’s going to impact migrations and so on. And in addition to that, we have infrastructure challenges here at home, witness some of our hurricanes and stuff.”“The president is looking at [potential threats] at a much broader angle than I am,” Milley said. “I’m looking at it from a strictly military standpoint and, from a strictly military standpoint, I’m putting China and Russia up there. That is not, however, in conflict with the acknowledgment that climate change, or infrastructure, or education systems — national security has a broad angle to it.”
-
[link=https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012138741/exxon-lobbyist-caught-on-video-talks-about-undermining-bidens-climate-push]https://www.npr.org/2021/…ng-bidens-climate-push[/link]
Exxon Lobbyist Caught On Video Talks About Undermining Biden’s Climate PushVideo clips released by the Greenpeace investigation project Unearthed show Keith McCoy, the oil giant’s senior director for federal relations, talking frankly about Exxon Mobil’s lobbying strategies. Channel 4 from the United Kingdom first reported the comments.
“Joe Manchin, I talk to his office every week,” bragged McCoy to the interviewer. He called the senator from West Virginia a “kingmaker” and discussed how “on the Democrat side we look for the moderates on these issues” in their efforts to stop policies that could hurt the company’s business.
Exxon Mobil has new board members focused on climate change and a well-documented history of sowing doubt about the issue. Climate activists were quick to jump on the comments as proof the company and the broader oil industry have not changed.
“Now people know exactly what is happening behind the scenes,” said Lori Lodes, executive director of Climate Power. She called on senators to ignore the industry’s “deceptive practices and get to work on a strong reconciliation package that delivers on President Biden’s promise of 100% clean electricity and reducing pollution.
[/QUOTE]
-
-
-
I heard a lot of this on the radio today. Also they go after Chris Coons to try and get to Biden.
The guy chortles when he was asked about how many wins they got with Trump in office.-
Scientific American has changed the use of the benign-sounding names, “global warming” & “global climate change,” etc to “global emergency due to the speed that warming has advanced beyond the “alarmist” projections given in the past. As every projection is made with “worst case scenarios,” each worst case is not only easily reached but surpassed.
[link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-living-in-a-climate-emergency-and-were-going-to-say-so/]https://www.scientificame…-were-going-to-say-so/[/link]
This idea is not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground. In January [i]Scientific American[/i] published an [link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-climate-emergency-2020-in-review/]article[/link] about a study entitled [link=https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806]World Scientists Warning of a Climate Emergency[/link]. At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action. As of April 9 [link=https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/]another 2,100 had signed on[/link]. As our article said, the adverse effects of climate change are much more severe than expected and now threaten both the biosphere and humanity…. Every effort must be made to reduce emissions and increase removal of atmospheric carbon in order to restore the melting Arctic and end the deadly cycle of damage that the current climate is delivering. Our article also noted that as of January, 1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued [link=https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/climate-emergency-declarations-cover-15-million-citizens/]climate emergency declarations[/link] covering more than 820 million people.
Journalism should reflect what science says: the climate emergency is here. The statement we have issued was coordinated by [link=https://www.coveringclimatenow.org/]Covering Climate Now[/link], a global journalism initiative with more than 400 media partners.
[link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-climate-emergency-2020-in-review/]https://www.scientificame…rgency-2020-in-review/[/link]
[link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/western-heat-wave-virtually-impossible-without-climate-change/]https://www.scientificame…ithout-climate-change/[/link]
[link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-emergency-stymies-forecasts-of-local-disaster-risks/ ]https://www.scientificame…-disaster-risks/ [/link]
-
[b]U.S. Regulators to Assess Climate Risks[/b]
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin says she will lead an effort by top U.S. regulators to assess the potential risk that climate change poses to Americas financial system, part of a wide-ranging initiative launched by the Biden administration, the AP reports.
Yellen says the regulatory review, which will be done by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, [which she chairs,] will examine whether banks and other lending institutions are properly assessing the risks to financial stability.
-
serious business. Death Valley was 130, and Cali was like 110-120.
-
EU Readies Sweeping Plan to Combat Climate Change
The European Union is set to propose a sweeping program today to transform the regions economy to fight climate change, slashing its reliance on fossil fuels and potentially jolting global trade with import levies that would hit high-emitting countries, the Wall Street Journal reports.
-
[b]Climate Change Rises In Importance to Voters[/b][/h1]
[link=https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1417931160177545219]Elliot Morris[/link]: For the first time since [i]The Economist[/i] and YouGov began regularly conducting polls in 2009, Americans rate climate change as their second most important issue ranking it above every other problem except healthcare.-
the subways flood in New York and China. Germany was getting leveled water.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/key-takeaways-from-the-u-n-climate-panels-report/85179183]https://energy.economicti…panels-report/85179183[/link]
[h1]Key takeaways from the U.N. climate panel’s report[/h1] [b]The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used its strongest terms yet to assert that humans are causing climate change.
[/b]
[b]HUMANS ARE TO BLAME – FULL STOP[/b]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used its strongest terms yet to assert that humans are causing climate change, with the first line of its report summary reading: “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.”
[b]TEMPERATURES WILL KEEP RISING[/b]
The report describes possible futures depending on how dramatically the world cuts emissions.
But even the severest of cuts are unlikely to prevent global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures. Without immediate steep emissions cuts, though, average temperatures could cruise past 2C by the end of the century.
[b]WEATHER IS GETTING EXTREME[/b]
Weather extremes once considered rare or unprecedented are becoming more common — a trend that will continue even if the world limits global warming to 1.5C.
Severe heat waves that happened only once every 50 years are now happening roughly once a decade. Tropical cyclones are getting stronger. Most land areas are seeing more rain or snow fall in a year. Severe droughts are happening 1.7 times as often. And fire seasons are getting longer and more intense.
[/QUOTE]
-
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/01/price-living-near-shore-is-already-high-its-about-go-through-roof/]https://www.washingtonpos…about-go-through-roof/[/link]
The price of living near the shore is already high. Its about to go through the roof.:
As FEMA prepares to remove subsidies from its flood insurance, a new assessment says 8 million homeowners in landlocked states are at risk of serious flooding because of climate change-
On Friday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency will incorporate climate risk into the cost of flood insurance for the first time, dramatically increasing the price for some new home buyers. Next April, most current policyholders will see their premiums go up and continue to rise by 18 percent per year for the next 20 years.
-
About time.
Using the rule of 72 that means premiums will double every four years. Unsustainable. Unfortunately some places are not conducive to building anymore.-
Insurers, corporations, the military services (in just about every nation), etc, all modelling climate changes into long term planning.
And yet there remains a sizable subset of people who just don’t buy it.
-
-
-
-
I made a snowball in January. Dinosaurs lived in warmer climates 100 million years ago.
What’s to know about warming?
The Earth is really flat; tobacco does not cause cancer; the Moon landing was staged in Hollywood; Eisenhower was a Communist agent; lizard-people shape-changers who are probably also Jewish are behind all the conspiracies. The absence of evidence is proof the conspiracies are true. -
[link=https://www.reuters.com/article/climate-usa-congress-idUSKBN2HI1BD]https://www.reuters.com/a…congress-idUSKBN2HI1BD[/link]
[h1]U.S. Congress puts Big Oil in the hot seat in climate deception probe[/h1]
The U.S. Congress on Thursday will open a years worth of investigations into whether Big Oil deceived Americans about its role in climate change, with Democratic lawmakers planning to grill the chiefs of four oil companies and two lobby groups.
The narrative is, in my view, simple: they know they lied and they continue to deceive, Representative Ro Khanna, chair of the environment subcommittee on the Environment, told Reuters in an interview. And if we can establish that I think it will be a Big Tobacco moment for Big Oil.
It will be the first time that executives of the top oil majors – ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, BP America and Chevron – and the heads of the American Petroleum Institute and Chamber of Commerce will answer questions about climate change in Congress under oath.[/QUOTE]
-
Climate change is real but not remotely the [link=https://nypost.com/2021/10/27/explainer-sticking-points-at-the-u-n-climate-conference/]existential threat to humanity[/link] that Biden and so many others claim. The numbers from the United Nations reports make that obvious, as economist Bjorn Lomborg keeps noting: Global economic growth through the year 2100 would leave the average person 450 percent richer than today; climate change (if we do nothing) knocks that down to 434 percent.
-
Money doesnt matter if were living in a hell scape.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Money doesnt matter if were living in a hell scape.
lol seriously? You don’t honestly believe that right?
Have you even read about climate change at all?
-
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
Climate change is real but not remotely the [link=https://nypost.com/2021/10/27/explainer-sticking-points-at-the-u-n-climate-conference/]existential threat to humanity[/link] that Biden and so many others claim. The numbers from the United Nations reports make that obvious, as economist Bjorn Lomborg keeps noting: Global economic growth through the year 2100 would leave the average person 450 percent richer than today; climate change (if we do nothing) knocks that down to 434 percent.
Lomborgs is a very minority opinion. His views are naïve assuming all good things while dismissing the downsides as minor.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/books/review/bjorn-lomborg-false-alarm-joseph-stiglitz.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/books/review/bjorn-lomborg-false-alarm-joseph-stiglitz.html[/link]
Somehow, missing in his list of good policy measures are easy things like good regulations preventing coal-burning electric generators, for example. Lomborg, a Danish statistician, exhibits a naïve belief that markets work well ignoring a half-century of research into market failures that says otherwise so well, in fact, that there is no reason for government to intervene other than by setting the right price of carbon.
Assessing how best to address climate change requires integrating analyses of the economy and the environment. Lomborg draws heavily on the work of William Nordhaus of Yale University, who came up with an estimate of the economic cost to limiting climate change to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. While Nordhaus seems to think its enormous, an international panel chaired by Lord Nicholas Stern and me (called the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices), supported by the World Bank, concluded that those goals could be achieved at a moderate price, well within the range of what the global economic system absorbs with the variability of energy prices.
A second mistake which biases the results in the same way is Nordhauss and Lomborgs underestimation of the damage associated with climate change. In early discussions of climate change the focus was often on global warming. It was natural for people to ask: Surely a few degrees of temperature change couldnt make that much difference? And besides, wouldnt it be nice if we could swim in the ocean off Nova Scotia? [b]But climate change is much more than that. It includes increasing acidification and rising sea levels (another aspect of climate change that Lomborg doesnt mention is that Wall Street could be underwater by 2100 [/b] a seeming benefit until one realizes that almost surely the bankers would find a way to force all of us to pay for their move to higher ground).
Climate change also includes more extreme weather events more intense hurricanes, more droughts, more floods, with all the devastation to life, livelihood and property that accompanies them. In 2017 alone, the United States lost some 1.5 percent of G.D.P. to such weather-related events.
[b]A third critical mistake, compounding the second, is not taking due account of risk. As the atmospheric concentration of carbon increases, we are entering uncharted territory. Not since the dawn of humanity has there been anything like this. The models use the best estimate of impacts, but as we learn more about climate change these best estimates keep getting revised, and, typically, in only one direction more damage and sooner than had been expected[/b].As a matter of policy, I typically decline to review books that deserve to be panned. You only make enemies. Even a slight barb opens a wound the writer will seldom forget. In the case of this book, though, I felt compelled to forgo this policy. Written with an aim to convert anyone worried about the dangers of climate change, Lomborgs work would be downright dangerous were it to succeed in persuading anyone that there was merit in its arguments.
This book proves the aphorism that a little knowledge is dangerous. Its nominally about air pollution. Its really about mind pollution.
-
The most comical thing about the deniers is their accusation that we are over reacting to anthropogenic warming.
Over reacting? Exactly where? What have we actually done to address warming that panics the deniers so throughly?
We have done nothing outside of creating vloumes of excess verbiage promising to do something someday, decades in the future. But, be afraid. World bankruptcy awaits real efforts leading us back to the caves albeit without fire burning carbon fuels like wood.
Be afraid.-
It’s not the deniers I worry about. Their arguments get more and more absurd as we watch the climate change.
What I find concerning is those that think with China as the number 1 polluter, there is a snowball’s chance under a heat dome of making a difference by decreasing carbon emissions in our dwarfed countries.
Sure we should try. However, even if we “only” warm by 1.5-2 degrees from here, we are going to see continued damaging storms and catastrophic effects of sea level rise. We better start preparing now to mitigate the effects.
If we save the economy by saving the fossil fuel industry I know where that money should be spent.-
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/03/18/antarctica-heat-wave-climate-change/]Washington Post[/link]
Its 70 degrees warmer than normal in eastern Antarctica. Scientists are flabbergasted.[/h1] [h2]This event is completely unprecedented and upended our expectations about the Antarctic climate system, one expert said[/h2]
Antarctic climatology has been rewritten, [link=https://twitter.com/pinturicchio_60/status/1504720715647442952]tweeted[/link] Stefano Di Battista, a researcher who has published studies on Antarctic temperatures. He added that such temperature anomalies would have been considered impossible and [link=https://twitter.com/pinturicchio_60/status/1504445209647669250]unthinkable[/link] before they actually occurred.
Parts of eastern Antarctica have seen temperatures hover 70 degrees (40 Celsius) above normal for three days and counting, Wille said. He[b] [/b]likened the event to the June heat wave in the Pacific Northwest, which scientists concluded would have been [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/07/07/pacific-northwest-heat-wave-climate/?itid=lk_inline_manual_7]virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.[/link]
What is considered warm over the frozen, barren confines of eastern Antarctica is, of course, relative. Instead of temperatures being minus-50 or minus-60 degrees (minus-45 or minus-51 Celsius), theyve been closer to zero or 10 degrees (minus-18 Celsius or minus-12 Celsius) but thats a massive heat wave by Antarctic standards.[/QUOTE]
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/03/18/antarctica-sea-ice-record-low/?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_8]Sea ice over Antarctica just shrank to its smallest on record[/link]
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/22/world/australia/election-albanese-climate.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes]https://www.nytimes.com/2…ur&smid=tw-nytimes[/link]
Australias Climate Election Finally Arrived. Will It Be Enough?[/h1]
[b]Voters rejected the deny-and-delay approach that has made Australia a global laggard on emission cuts. But how far the new government will go remains to be seen.[/b]
A few minutes after taking the stage to declare victory in Australias election on Saturday, Anthony Albanese, the incoming Labor prime minister, promised to transform climate change from a source of political conflict into a generator of economic growth.
Together we can end the climate wars, he told his supporters, who cheered for several seconds. Together we can take advantage of the opportunity for Australia to be a renewable energy superpower.
With that comment and his win along with a surge of votes for candidates outside the two-party system [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/world/australia/federal-election-independents.html]who made combating global warming a priority[/link] the likelihood of a significant shift in Australias climate policy has suddenly increased.
The real action on climate has got to be community-led, Mr. Griffith said. He argued that the election results were encouraging because they showed the issue resonating with a wider range of the electorate.
Its a less divisive set of politics, its coming from the center, he said. Its a middle-class uprising, and so the climate action isnt as partisan.
[b]
[/b]
-
So much for “small-government” Republicans. Now we have governments retaliating against businesses who do not kow-tow to the party line regarding insanity beliefs.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/07/12/republicans-threaten-wall-street-over-climate-positions/]https://www.washingtonpos…ver-climate-positions/[/link]This spring, Kentucky lawmakers voted to empower state officials to stop doing business with any firm that says it wont invest in fossil fuels. The move drew praise from other Republican officials, although the state hasnt penalized a firm yet.
Kentucky joins our growing coalition of states that have taken concrete steps to push back against the woke capitalists who are trying to destroy our energy industries, West Virginia Treasurer Riley [link=https://www.mooreforwv.com/treasurer_moore_praises_kentucky_lawmakers_treasurer_ball_for_passage_of_pro_fossil_fuel_banking_protection_bill]Moore said[/link] after Kentucky adopted the legislation.
Moore last month told six of the nations largest financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock and Wells Fargo, that they might no longer be allowed to do business with the state of West Virginia because of their positions on working with the fossil fuel industry.
Texas has blocked a handful of financial firms, including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, from bond offerings over the banks reluctance to lend to certain gun manufacturers and fossil fuel developers, including coal mines.
Late last year, Louisiana Treasurer John Schroder barred JPMorgan Chase from taking part in a $700 million bond offering because, he said, the banks lending policies on firearms violated the Second Amendment.
Preventing big firms from doing business in GOP states could come with a cost.
A new paper by University of Pennsylvania Wharton School professor Daniel G. Garrett and Federal Reserve Board economist Ivan T. Ivanov argues that Texas state entities will pay an additional $303 million to $532 million in interest costs on the $32 billion in borrowing during the first eight months following the passage of two laws last September. Government regulation limiting the adoption of ESG distorts financial market outcomes, the paper says.
In her letter, Friedman said that the banks credit exposure to the oil and gas industry was $42.6 billion, with an additional exposure of $33.2 billion in the utility sector. In addition, the bank had more than $100 billion in the finance and facilitation of clean energy projects.
But with hurricanes, floods and rising temperatures in places such as Texas, some argue that big firms like BlackRock or JPMorgan Chase must assess and[b] [/b]address climate risks if they are going to manage their financial[b] [/b]risks.
One of the other things were hearing is that the attorneys general are really betraying the GOPs long-standing belief in free markets, said the Rev. Kirsten Snow Spalding, senior program director of Ceress investor network, which advocates for shareholder resolutions.[b] [/b]It is no longer furthering free capitalism but stifling it. It is interfering with free capital markets, and those on the right are putting their thumbs on market investments.
-
New study predicts 3% Greenland ice melting raising global sea levels by 1 foot.
And that does not include other glaciers melting worldwide.
A givt to ourselves, our children and grandchildren and great grands.
DRILL, BABY DRILL!
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/08/29/greenland-ice-sheet-sea-level/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/08/29/greenland-ice-sheet-sea-level/[/link]The findings in Nature Climate Change project that it is now inevitable that 3.3 percent of the [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/03/15/greenland-ice-sheet-more-vulnerable/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4]Greenland ice sheet[/link] will melt equal to 110 trillion[b] [/b]tons of ice,[b] [/b]the researchers said. That will trigger nearly a foot of global sea-level rise.
The predictions are more dire than other forecasts, though they use different assumptions.[b] [/b]While the study did not specify a time frame for the melting and sea-level rise, the authors suggested[b] [/b]much of it can play out between now and the year 2100.
The point is, we need to plan for that ice as if it werent on the ice sheet in the near future, within a century or so, William Colgan, a study co-author who studies[b] [/b]the ice sheet from its surface[b] [/b]with his colleagues[b] [/b]at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, said in a video interview.
A one-foot rise in[b] [/b]global sea levels would have severe consequences. If the sea level along the U.S. coasts rose by an average of 10 to 12 inches by 2050, a [link=https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html]recent report[/link] from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found,[b] [/b]the most destructive[b] [/b]floods[b] [/b]would take place five times as often, and moderate floods[b] [/b]would become 10 times as frequent.Other countries [b] [/b][link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/11/09/cop26-tuvalu-underwater/?itid=lk_inline_manual_14]low-lying island nations[/link] and developing ones, like Bangladesh[b] [/b] are even more vulnerable. These nations, which have done little to fuel the higher temperatures that are now thawing the Greenland ice sheet,[b] [/b]lack the billions of dollars it will[b] [/b]take to adapt to rising seas.
-
-
-
Billionaire founder of Patagonia clothing gives away his company creating a trust to run it to take profits & spend them to address climate change.
-
[link=https://www.axios.com/2022/12/10/passive-isnt-green?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social]https://www.axios.com/202…&utm_medium=social[/link]
[b]Vanguard Leaves the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative.
[/b]
By their nature, passive investors can’t divest from carbon-intensive companies. That’s a [link=https://sunriseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/The-Passives-Problem-The-Sunrise-Project-Report.pdf]big problem[/link], for environmentalists who have been loudly [link=https://vanguard-sos.com/]campaigning[/link] against Vanguard’s fossil-fuel investments.
Joining groups like NZAM carries connotations distasteful to many Republicans, who criticize the members of such groups as being beholden to “woke capitalism.”
Vanguard has been on the receiving end of relatively few of those complaints, but BlackRock, another mostly-passive asset manager, is regularly attacked by Republicans. On Thursday, Arizona said it[b] [/b][link=https://twitter.com/WillHild/status/1600899535756492803]withdrew[/link] $543 million from BlackRock money-market funds, for instance.…
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink relishes the fight over environmental responsibility. Most other U.S. asset managers don’t.
[/QUOTE]
-
Quote from dergon
[h3][link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxons-climate-change-accounting-goes-on-trial-11571650203]Exxon’s Climate-Change Accounting Goes on Trial – WSJ[/link][/h3]
Exxon Mobil Corp. and New Yorks attorney general are headed for a showdown this week over accusations the company deceived investors, a rare trial over how the oil industry accounts for the impact of climate change.The trial, which begins Tuesday in state court in Manhattan, is the culmination of a sprawling investigation into Exxon and its accounting practices that spanned four years and three New York attorneys general. It is expected to include as a witness former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson…
[/QUOTE]
Quote from dergon
[h2][link=https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/545958-court-upholds-dismissal-of-nyc-lawsuit-against-oil-companies]Court upholds dismissal of New York City lawsuit against oil companies[/link][/h2] [/QUOTE]
coming around like a bad penny …
[link=https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/12/business/exxon-climate-models-global-warming/index.html]Exxon accurately predicted global warming from 1970s — but continued to cast doubt on climate science, new report finds
[/link]
Researchers examined climate projections produced between 1977 and 2003 by Exxon, one of the worlds biggest oil and gas companies. They found the companys science was not only good enough to predict long term temperature rise, but also accurately predicted when human-caused climate change would become discernible, according to the report published Thursday [link=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063]in the journal Science[/link].
…
This is the first-ever systematic assessment of the fossil fuel industrys climate projections, Supran told CNN.
The researchers analyzed more than 100 reports by Exxon scientists, produced between 1977 and 2014. They then whittled these down to 12 documents containing climate projections and compared them against historical observations.
Between 63% to 83% of the projections were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming and their projections were also consistent with independent academic models, the report found.
[b]The companys climate modeling showed shocking skill and accuracy,[/b] Supran said.[/QUOTE]
-
But anthropogenic warming is a Liberal fraud as we know. We still have snow in winter as that Congressman proved by bringing in a snowball a couple of years ago.
-
I am betting we will see zero mea culpas from the deniers.
-
Odd thing, Wall Street Journal says nothing about this Exxon finding.
-
This belongs both under climate denial and viability of electric cars threads. Even Who Knew? Liberals are anti-science thread regarding how Republicans want to preserve ignorance of “theories,” like gravity and germ theory, among very many others from their constituents.
Climate change effects are more and more in the hands of individuals instead of just corporations.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/02/09/individual-action-climate-change-tax/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/02/09/individual-action-climate-change-tax/[/link]Almost 10 years ago, a solo researcher published a jaw-dropping statistic that changed how many people thought about climate change. Just 90 large companies, [link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y]he determined[/link], released almost [i]two-thirds[/i] of all greenhouse gas emissions between 1751 and 2010. (Big players like Chevron, Exxon and BP made the list, along with state-owned fossil fuel companies and cement producers.)
The studys finding underscored a clear dilemma:[b] [/b]If 90 companies have caused most of the worlds climate change, why bother eating less meat or switching to an electric car?
Now, however, that calculus might be changing.
[b]According to data from Princeton University, roughly [i]30 percent[/i] of the emissions reductions from the bill expected over the next decade will come from consumers switching to electric vehicles and a transformation in home heating and appliances.[/b]
Part of that is due to the gas-fueled nature of the American home. [b]Many houses are like mini fossil-fuel power plants,[/b] said Leah Stokes, a professor of political science at the University of California at Santa Barbara. [b]They have a gas furnace, a gas water heater and a gas stove. And then out front, the power plant has a gas-powered car![/b]
[b]Thats why the Inflation Reduction Act includes [link=https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-09/PL117-169_9-7-22.pdf]huge sums of money[/link] to help households move away from those oil and gas-fueled machines: $7.5 billion in electric vehicle tax credits, $24 billion in credits to electrify homes. (Individuals can get up to $7,500 off an electric car, $2,000 off a heat pump, and more.)[/b]
-
-
-
-
-
-
