Rabbit Dogs banner
1 - 20 of 208 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
454 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The thing that gets me is how many millions of years the climate has operated on it's own.
Now we have to get it fixed before next Thursday?
Do we really think $7.00 gas in the US is going to convince the Chinese to change the way they do things?
Do we think putting the trucking industry out of business resulting in food going bad where it is and empty shelves in the Grocery is a good plan. Ever been hungry and nothing. No money and no food? I have and I didn't like it much.
What about the battery operated cars? Have you seem the Lithium mines? Plastic bottles and baby diapers are bad enough. What are we planning to do with old batteries? I guess we can put them in the mountain with the nuclear waste.
I don't know boys. Maybe we have fixed the planet enough already.
If people would stop throwing their trash out the car window might be a first step.
I hear one big state tore out their dams so a little fish could get up the creek and now they are straining their toilet water to drink. These are the same people that tell me the Earth is to hot. I don't know boys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,486 Posts
If we can avoid nuclear war, climate is most likely the biggest threat to humanity. I saw a prediction the other day that said within 100 years, unless we end the use of fossil fuels soon, there will be so many starving refugees migrating into areas where there is food no armies will be able to stop them. We are already seeing how drought is affecting crops (food supply).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
454 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I understand.
I wonder if there will be many people in 100 years.
I got my doubts about the next 10.
Seriously I think the climate will work itself out because I don't think the way we are living now is going to last much longer.
There is so many things that may happen any day that can snap the whole world back to the stone age I doubt the climate will come into play.
We are over due for an asteroid strike that can really change the climate.
We have volcanos that could block the sun.
Eruptions of the sun sending EMPs in our direction is bound to happen someday. It happens now just not been toward us yet.
I hope climate change is all we got coming.
I hope little Kim don't send us an EMP. or the Chinese don't send one. They got something in mind. Been paying any attention to what they have been doing.
Then there is Putin. Who knows what he might do with his nukes.
A man can't live thinking about everything that is hanging over his head. I don't really have any problem with working on climate change/global warming ect. If handled right it might not hurt anything.
I keep coming back to this.
God made the Heavens and Earth. It's His not ours. Do you really think He is going to let man mess it up.
Man is really insignificant in the big scheme of things.
Some little microscopic
virus is apt to get us before the ocean floods Kentucky.

This would be a good time for me to apologize to the world for Al Gore.
Sorry folks. The state of TN regrets this oversight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Ah don’t fall for it, climate has and always will warm and cool, our understanding of climate is just a snap shot in history, impossible to draw a conclusion from, just ask the dinosaurs. Want to know the truth follow the money, Look at our friend Al Gore (the guy who invented the internet) hero of the left living in a 14,000 sq ft home with a fleet of suburbans, and jet setting all over the place, telling us we should be living tiny homes, and driving mopeds, typical and than the sheep follow along like good little sheep
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,468 Posts
The Middle East and other countries do not like the USA, they do not want McDonald’s and the Democratic way of life when they have dictators running their countries, Putin, Kim Jong and who ever is in China wants to maintain power and control.
Do you think Japan, China, Russia will make the change to stop global warming by cutting the use of coal. Unless every country is on board dealing with global warming its will be status quo.

I look at it as the antler restrictions here in Michigan and voluntary managing their land by not shooting bucks under 4-6 points. A cop I know was leasing 120 acres in the thumb of Michigan. He told me that only big bucks would be shot 6-8-10 points. He did this for 6 years, I told him you maybe doing deer management for the 120 acres, but what happens if the deer leave your 120 acres or you lost your lease. Long pause, they lost there lease. If everyone is not practicing the same management tactics it will not show any progress. Just saying. JMHO
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
454 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Mike Bebernes
Mike Bebernes

·Senior Editor
Sun, June 5, 2022, 11:01 AM


“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.










Russia's invasion of
Ukraine is front and center.


Scroll back up to restore default view.
What’s happening
Humans have pumped so much carbon into the air that climate experts now believe even a dramatic reduction in fossil fuel emissions won’t be enough. They say we’ll also have to remove some of the carbon that’s already in the atmosphere if we want to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.
Plants do this naturally, but most scientists say the sheer volume of carbon that must be sucked out of the air means that simply planting more trees won’t be enough. That view has led to huge investment into potential technologies that — if proven effective and utilized at a massive scale — could help achieve global climate goals in the coming decades.
In the past few years, huge sums of money have been invested into what’s known as Direct Air Capture (DAC), a controversial new process that uses giant fans to drive air into facilities that use chemical reactions to pull carbon out of the air and store it — either in the ground or repurposed to create certain products.
There are currently about 20 DAC plants in operation around the world. Together, they are capable of pulling roughly 0.01 million metric tons of CO2 out of the air per year, a tiny fraction of 980 million metric tons that will be needed each year by 2050, according to an estimate from the International Energy Agency.
Last month, the Department of Energy announced a plan to provide $3.5 billion to fund the construction of four new DAC plants in the United States. There has also been massive private investment in the technology, including from Google, Facebook, Tesla’s owner, Elon Musk, and a long list of major investment firms.
Why there’s debate
Despite the dire predictions of what will happen without carbon removal and the potential promise of the technology, there’s deep division among experts over whether Direct Air Capture is a legitimate answer to the world’s climate challenges.
Advocates say that although the industry is in its infancy, DAC is the only proven method we have to pull from the air the carbon that is needed to meaningfully change the course of climate change. They note the huge investment in the development of new plants as a sign that there’s a strong desire from both governments and businesses to rapidly ramp up carbon removal efforts and argue that the process will become more significantly efficient and affordable over time, as more companies join the industry. Others make the case that, even though there are reasons to doubt that the dreams of DAC optimists are achievable, the climate situation is so dire that we need to go all-in on every solution that seems even remotely possible.
There are many skeptics, though. Some scientists argue that it’s unlikely that there will ever be enough DAC plants to make a significant dent in the world’s carbon output — one expert estimated that the largest plant currently in operation can only capture “three seconds worth of humanity’s CO2 emissions” in a year. Another issue, they say, is that carbon capture may never achieve the level of sustained investment that other green technologies have, because it doesn’t produce an end product that can be sold for profit.
Others worry that the promise of carbon removal may be used as an excuse to delay the transition from fossil fuels, which is widely viewed as the single most important step toward curbing climate change. There are also practical concerns about the damage that could be caused to the environment and vulnerable communities by the existence of hundreds of DAC plants around the globe.

largest plant currently in operation can only capture “three seconds worth of humanity’s CO2

I guess the fans will run on solar.

Last month, the Department of Energy announced a plan to provide $3.5 billion to fund the construction of four new DAC plants in the United States.

Wow Does this mean that for only 3.5 billion we can reduce carbon by 12 seconds? Wonder what that equates to in cow farts.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
454 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
How does carbon get into the atmosphere?


Atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from two primary sources—natural and human activities. Natural sources of carbon dioxide include most animals, which exhale carbon dioxide as a waste product. Human activities that lead to carbon dioxide emissions come primarily from energy production, including burning coal, oil, or natural gas.

So....I guess we will charge the electric cars with solar?

I would be in favor of cutting the AC in all government buildings. Heat at 68 in winter.

How long will it be before Beagles are taxed for carbon emissions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,081 Posts
Ah don’t fall for it, climate has and always will warm and cool, our understanding of climate is just a snap shot in history, impossible to draw a conclusion from, just ask the dinosaurs. Want to know the truth follow the money, Look at our friend Al Gore (the guy who invented the internet) hero of the left living in a 14,000 sq ft home with a fleet of suburbans, and jet setting all over the place, telling us we should be living tiny homes, and driving mopeds, typical and than the sheep follow along like good little sheep
If there was a problem, why are. there never any debates on national TV.
If you trust politicians and big business, shame on you.
Carbon Dioxide is a natural gas in the environment. Temperature has risen a couple degrees in the last hundred years, well within the normal variation.
Until someone, not connected to the government, shows me a valid chart of the weather, number of storms, food production, I'm skeptical.
The same folks screaming "Catastrophe" are in charge of fuel production, inflation, and baby formula. Strange coincidence, we had plenty of all those products until the sky screamers got total control of the government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,486 Posts
Good posts, ET. New technologies like carbon capture plants give us some hope. The future looks bleak otherwise. Anyone today not living under a rock can see climate changing rapidly all around them. It’s no longer a “theory”.

Problem is, we’ve known about our climate changing for over 50 years, but could never get movement on changes necessary to address it. Like the frog in a slowly warming pot, we have probably waited too long to jump. I believe many other countries, including China, are investing in mitigation efforts, but the US should lead the world in it. Trump set us back, and Biden is trying to refocus efforts, but he is sadly overwhelmed by all the other issues right now. We need better leadership, and soon!

Our response to climate change is typical of man’s response to an almost overwhelming issue: Delay, Distract, Delay, Disregard, Delay, Deny, Disinform, Deny!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
454 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Al Gore is thriving, too.

The man who was within sight of the presidency 12 years ago has transformed himself, becoming perhaps the world’s most renowned crusader on climate change and a highly successful green-tech investor.

VIEW GRAPHIC
Gore's green investments
Just before leaving public office in 2001, Gore reported assets of less than $2 million; today, his wealth is estimated at $100 million.

Here you go Huntsman.
Clue
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
454 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
19 Green Energy Companies Have Failed at Taxpayer Expense
Poya Osgouei 23 comments
Back in July, President Obama said, “when I try something that doesn’t work, then I don’t try it again”
Yet the President continues to funnel taxpayer money to green energy companies that seem to fail month after month.
The Heritage Foundation’s Elinor Renner and Rachael Slobodien compiled a list of 19 green energy companies that received a total of $2.6 billion of taxpayer money–and failed anyway:
1. Abound Solar, Government’s Bad Bet: $ 790.3 million
2. Solyndra, Government’s Bad Bet: $570 million
3. A123 Systems, Government’s Bad Bet: $377.1 million
4. Ener1 (EnerDel, subsidiary), Government’s Bad Bet: $182.8 million
5. Range Fuels, Government’s Bad Bet: $162.3 million
6. Azure Dynamics, Government’s Bad Bet: $119.1 million
7. Energy Conversion Devices (subsidiary, United Solar Ovanic), Government’s Bad Bet: $110.3 million
8. Evergreen Solar, Inc., Government’s Bad Bet: $84.9 million
9. Beacon Power, Government’s Bad Bet: $77.4 million
10. Raser Technologies, Government’s Bad Bet: $33 million
11. Nordic Windpower, Government’s Bad Bet: $24.6 million
12. SpectraWatt, Government’s Bad Bet: $20.5 million
13. Konarka Technologies, Government’s Bad Bet: $13.6 million
14. Satcon Technology Corporation, Government’s Bad Bet: $17 million
15. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Co., Government’s Bad Bet: $10.8 million
16. Stirling Energy Systems, Inc., Government’s Bad Bet: $10.5 million
17. Thompson River Power, LLC, Government’s Bad Bet: $6.5 million
18. Cardinal Fasteners and Specialty Co., Inc., Government’s Bad Bet: $480,000
19. Mountain Plaza, Inc. , Government’s Bad Bet: $424,000
The problem is that the federal government is trying to pick economic winners and losers. That means the government is taking over the role of private sector venture capitalists, who decide if a risky investment is worth the potential benefits. But when the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to favor well-connected firms, which is cronyism. And unlike private investors, who are risking their own money, the government is taking risks with your money.

How many times do you want to make con men rich.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,486 Posts
Al Gore is thriving, too.

The man who was within sight of the presidency 12 years ago has transformed himself, becoming perhaps the world’s most renowned crusader on climate change and a highly successful green-tech investor.

VIEW GRAPHIC
Gore's green investments
Just before leaving public office in 2001, Gore reported assets of less than $2 million; today, his wealth is estimated at $100 million.

Here you go Huntsman.
Clue
I say good for Al Gore! The man was ahead of his time and we didn’t listen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,486 Posts
if it hadnt been for climate change------we could hunt dinosaurs-------AND THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PUT A LIMIT AND SIZE/SEX ON WHITCH ONES WE COULD SHOOT~~~~AND LICENSE WOULD BE THRU THE ROOF
Actually the dinosaur period ended as a result of the effects following an asteroid impact in the Yucatán. If not for that, we probably would not be here today.
 
1 - 20 of 208 Posts
Top