Slashdot Mirror
Obama Reveals Climate Change Plan
Today President Obama gave a speech outlining the administration's plan to take on climate change. (Video of the speech available on YouTube, and the White House published an infographic as well.) Most significantly, Obama's plan would have the EPA set limits on carbon pollution from all U.S. power plants, a goal already meeting resistance from Republicans. The plan also sets the goal of funding enough solar- and wind-based energy projects on public lands to power over 6 million homes by 2020. By 2030, it aims to use efficiency standards to reduce carbon pollution by 3 billion metric tons. Obama called for new efforts to deal with extreme weather like Hurricane Sandy. He also pointed out the difficulty in getting emerging industrial economies to be environmentally conscious. To that end, the plan calls for the end of U.S. support for financing coal power plants in foreign countries, unless those plants use carbon capture and sequestration technologies. The speech addressed the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry up to 800,000 gallons of oil per day from Canada into the U.S. Obama indicated that approval for the pipeline would be tied to emissions goals.
Microsoft is the best example of a company that cares about climate. They run their datacenters in places with access to clean water and wind power. Their Windows OS supports power saving features. Azure cloud is hosted on data centers that utilize clean power.. etc.
Hell, even Bill Gates Foundation widely supports research towards cleaner power and data usage. Way to go, Microsoft and Bill Gates, I say.
I guess dinossaurs would still be walking on the Earth, since he'd have devised a plan to divert that huge meteor from Earth (maybe get dinossaur Bruce Willis on board to help).
I'll just leave this here for you all to ponder- One of the wisest men on the planet. Dennis Prager. Please read with an open mind. :)
http://www.dennisprager.com/transcripts.aspx?id=1167
I have absolutely no respect anymore for Obama. Everything i hear from him is a lie, after the NSA scandal. So i fully believe that this plan is going through.
All you have to do is look at predictions from 10 and 20 years ago to see what a disaster would befall us even right now in 2013. That the predictions turned out to be overblown and wrong is missing the point. Now, how can we redistribute some of that carbon-associated wealth?
Great, now he wants to keep track of climate too!!!!
THANKS, Obama!
He also pointed out the difficulty in getting emerging industrial economies to be environmentally conscious.
Yes, it's very difficult to tell the countries where we outsource our industrial jobs to reduce their profits and spend more on the environment.
There should be a rule that whenever there is a power shortage attributable to power plants being shut down due to government regulations, Washington D.C. is the first place that is blacked out.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
>> Obama called for new efforts to deal with extreme weather like Hurricane Sandy.
Like move coastal populations so we aren't always on the hook for rebuilding people's beach houses?
>> the plan calls for the end of U.S. support for financing coal power plants in foreign countries
We're doing what? And they wonder why taxpayers hate the federal government...
Friends of the Earth's climate and energy program director Damon Moglen said the President's climate plan is "not enough" and needs to be more ambitious.
http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2013-06-statement-on-president-obamas-climate-plan
Well isn't doing something like this, which causes so much angst from the energy sector and Republicans, at least a step in the right direction? Using a US football analogy, we can't always make a touchdown with every effort isn't a heroic 9-yard run a good start? Being any more ambitious with the President's plan would risk all-out resistance from every billion-dollar lobby and politician.
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
Not for nothing are the Republicans known as "the stupid party."
We have a carefully designed system of government. For one branch to declare that it will simply bypass one of the others is a direct violation of the Constitution. No ifs, ands or buts. No President has the power to bypass Congress. The system was designed to balance powers, in this case the Executive branch is declaring the process null and void.
Well, I didn't think it was possible for the U.S. to fuck over third world countries any harder. But then!
To that end, the plan calls for the end of U.S. support for financing coal power plants in foreign countries ... And STAY down, Africa.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He's going to do his best to end the threat of global reporting.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Tying the Keystone XL to emissions is clever. Sure the tar sands are amongst the filthiest forms of oil , but if emissions are limited, it really doesn't matter since emissions is the point of the sword that kills and everything else is, in the final analysis irrelevant.
If XL is not built, there is nothing stopping the oil from coming in on rail and it's not clear how punishing that would be to the industry.
Emissions are the business end of all policy. Going after emissions is exactly the right thing to do. It creates the environment where innovative technologies that cut emissions are differentially rewarded by the marketplace. Nothing like enlisting greed in your cause.
If big oil and coal want to develop a zero emission technology then they can light this shit on fire until there's none left and it wouldn't matter one bit.
Another great thing about this policy is it will force the retirement of some of the dirtiest fucking coal plants around the country and stop the creation of new dirty ones since investors aren't going to invest in them if they're never going to see the light of day.
This is exactly the right message to send. Make carbon emission expensive and prohibit the worst of it. Spend big on R and D.
Which we know by Jevons and Khazzoom–Brookes, doesn't work.
The Republitarians will rollover to get Keystone XL passed.
Then they will use the court system to get the environmental part of the deal reduced, and hold the economy hostage for the kill them completely.
But I'm cool with it anyway, just so long as the states have to deal with cleaning up the mess themselves, as opposed to the fed.
The "war on coal" is no less morally sound than the "war on Nazis" was, Godwin be damned.
There should be a rule that whenever there is a power shortage attributable to power plants being shut down due to government regulations, Washington D.C. is the first place that is blacked out.
Whenever a business PR person or business leader uses these excuses:
1. Government regulation
2. Litigation
3. Foreign Dumping
you know he's full of shit.
Remember, in the US the Golden Rule prevails - He who has the most gold makes the rules.
Corporate American has the most Gold (and the 1%'ers who control them). If Government Regulation really hurt them, they was just order their bitches in DC to change the rules - like they did with the tax laws allowing them to pay a much lower rate than the rest of us.
No, this whole government regulations BS is just to fool Joe Sixpack and Jane Q. Public and justify picking their pockets.
In the meantime, they move the jobs overseas to less regulated countries and murder their citizens with shitty working conditions and environments.
Name ANY industry that's bitching about "Government Regulations" and I'll show that not only are they full of shit, but they LOVE the regulations because it increase the barriers to entry.
And everyone on Fox News and Talk Radio are just the propaganda arms of the 1%'ers.
Now get back to work peon.
Having to pay much more for electricity will mean having less money left over for food, which means less obesity! Now we just need to increase gasoline taxes so they will get more exercise as well. On top of that, high energy consumers, such as, you know, factories, will have to cut down production, perhaps even close down completely, further reducing the pollution! There is just no end to the benefits from artificially inflating the cost of energy.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
So, we're going to start trying to nix the primary way we generate electricity...and not go nuclear even though we can recycle buried waste into power...and instead we're going to cut down a bunch of trees on public land and toss up solar and wind farms? Yeah, that's logical.
This is purely political and not about the environment or climate change. The climate changes naturally, and adapts to the creatures (us and everything else on earth) and their affects on it. If anything we should be burning less coal from switching to nuclear plants.
I'll just leave this here. http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/MIT-Develops-Meltdown-Proof-Nuclear-Waste-Eating-Reactor.html
Africa has the most to lose with global warming.
And that would be... what? SInce we all know now that global climate change does not specifically mean warming all over.
But if it did mean Africa getting generally warmer, remind me again what life saving air conditioning runs on?
I mean, if you really thought Africa was getting warmer it seems like you would make some allowances to help them, not specifically to yank help away and let more people die than have to. That is, if you wanted to help people at all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The hypothesis to base limiting carbon dioxide emissions on is that they cause damage to the commons.
Fine, if that's so then limiting them is a bad solution. I understand that it may be worth it for the benefits of the activity. That's fine too. Why is any harm allowed free of cost? Publicly fund research to put a dollar figure on the current marginal damage done by carbon dioxide emissions as well as on the cost to cleanup. Take the minimum of those two values and just tax the emissions at that rate, plus maybe a small percentage markup, right from the start. That way costs are borne by the people causing the harm. They are incentivized to minimize harm even at rates under what would have been the cap. Market forces will determine whether it's worth it and by how much and what amount should be prevented versus cleaned.
The two weaknesses here are monitoring, which is just as much a problem with capping, and determining the cost. The research wont come to a perfect solution, but we can improve it over time. It'll have to be reevaluated periodically anyway since the cost is probably non-linear. In any case I don't see how that's more questionable than coming up with the cap figure. Liberals should be happy with this solution since it more strictly limits than what we have today. Conservative should be happy because everyone pays his fair share and the market gets to work. In reality liberals would hate it because it murders the Earth, and conservatives would hate it because it murders jobs. Both hating it seems just as good as both loving it.
Wake me up when he calls for higher gas taxes, cycling infrastructure, and high-speed rail.
... in that I don't give a damn about this.
I see democrats are still into calling names...
saying pipeline can't be completed unless it cuts greenhouse emissions, Obama has shown himself to be a moron of the highest caliber.
Energy use drives progress and has lengthened human life and quality of life. This fake "environmentalism" is just mask on religion of man-haters.
Real environmentalism and the best thing for the human race is to go to clean and powerful energy sources that are superior to the polluting fossil fuels, such as advanced nuclear reactor designs that can't melt down and have no long-term waste products.
"The speech addressed the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry up to 800,000 gallons of oil per day from Canada into the U.S. Obama indicated that approval for the pipeline would be tied to emissions goals."
The job of the government is to analyze the proposal and then based on that analysis grant or deny permission preferably providing feedback regarding the proposal. Instead of the government doing its JOB, it is playing politics. The agencies in charge of the evaluation have given their approval with the exception of the White House. The President is tying the approval of this JOB CREATING PROJECT to his political stance. Playing politics again instead of doing its job and accepting or denying based on the merits. :(
about his climate change plans while Snowden is on the run? Fix the justice system first, then climate stops changing on its own.
The use of fracking technology to recover natural gas has done more to help the climate than any of these plans.
Doesn't ANYONE remember the great ozone scare and debate in the 1980s?
Scary predictions were made by the dozen. Dire futures were laid out. Plant to cut CFC discharge into the atmosphere were drafted willy-nilly.
And what was the result? The earth was NOT "saved". WE ended up spending gazillions of dollars for CFC alternatives, and nobody still can tell us how much of the stuff ever got into the upper atmosphere.
Does anyone remember the introduction of catalytic converters for cars? What was it we were told? We were told the converters would convert the noxious emissions into harmless water...and carbon dioxide.
Doesn't anyone feel like we have been taken for a ride, here???
You elected him, bozos!
Now the bed is made, sleep in it.
Nighty-night!
Pie in the sky while American children in Appalachia go to bed hungry every night. Clean coal is as just possible as cost effective solar/wind and its made in America.
The desperate poor will get what they need form wherever it is available. Dark days ahead for the wage thieves and wealth hoarders.
At $0.50-0.60 a watt for today's solar panels, we're almost at the point where people can power their own homes. Unless of course you live where it rains constantly, like the pacific NW, lol. Oh and cloudy days/night time? There are energy storage solutions available - flywheels for example.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Rather than picking winners and losers and setting arbitrary limits they should be using carbon and fuel taxes.
Under Obama's plan, operations that could pollute less will pollute exactly their limit, places where higher output and thus higher emissions would be actually more efficient in terms of greenhouse gases per MW will instead operate at lower efficiency, the government will spend billions of dollars subsidizing Solyndra wannabes, and actual gas use by consumers will change little no matter how they try to regulate the auto industry.
With carbon and fuel taxes, consumers and corporations would all have better incentives to improve their emissions, the market would decide the best way to allocate resources, energy innovation would be encouraged, there would be tremendously less deadweight loss, and the government could either reduce other taxes or reduce its absurdly large deficits.
People from all across the political spectrum who are informed and honest agree that this, not hard caps or cap-and-trade, is the way to go. But politicians like Obama would rather trash the nation's economy and not actually accomplish any climate progress than touch the third rail of fossil fuel taxes.
In a "town hall" conversation where I brought this up with my Congresscritter- a Tea Party diehard who I'm frequently frustrated with- I was shocked to hear him admit that raising gas taxes and using the revenue to either reduce deficits or reduce taxes on productive behavior is a very good idea. But, he said, it'll never fly, so I'm not going to try to push it. If everybody who knew it's the right thing to do got behind it and tried to educate the populace rather than hiding behind a smokescreen, pretty soon the idea would fly, with bipartisan support.
Technology like the type that Mantra Venture Capital Group (MVTG) has been working on for a while now would lower carbon pollution without much (if any) of a cost increase. Industry just needs an incentive to go out and use this technology (ie to not have to pay for carbon pollution).
1. The Farallon islands were connected to the land 20,000 years ago. The San Francisco Bay was dry land with a river valley in it. There have been several incarnation of the California coastline, radically altered due to advancing and receding glaciers during what are, in geological terms, a short period of time.
2. This was by no mean a North American phenomenon. It was global. The Great Barrier reef near Australia is also very young. Aborigines once hunted Kangaroo where the fish now swim and the coral grows. Loss of the reef would be annoying to some humans, but no big deal in the grand scheme of things.
3. In even more recent times there was the "little ice age" and the medieval warm period. Civilizations were around during those times. Some did well, others less well. If anything, the cooler climates were harder on Europe; but the increase in shipping which brought plague rats to Europe probably caused more grief than anything else.
I worry a heck of a lot more about the next bird flu from China than I do that my 9 year old nephew will have to move up a mile inland when he's an old man.
at the word "metric".
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Airplane crashes because the owner or operator failed to follow regulations. Damn the FAA!
If we continue to pollute and drive climate change, the environment will become inhospitable and people will die as a result. A lot more. We could, alternatively, actually do something to address poverty after we stop destroying the planet. But, you know, Republicans hate the poor and they have the power, so...
This has nothing to do with saving the planet. It's a totally transparent (!) and cynical attempt to change the subject away from the web of scandals entangling Obama.
How about banning the auto dealer laws that some states use to block competition, which are preventing electric car manufacturers like Tesla from becoming more popular?
Moving to electric cars is not THE answer to climate change problems, but it's a part of it, and getting rid of such ridiculous restrictions is a pretty low-hanging-fruit thing to do.
Since peaking in 2005, US carbon emissions have dropped a gigaton per year. This was mainly due to switching almost half of coal-powered to electricity to cheaper and cleaner natural gas. This is near the goal [unratified] Kyoto treaty of 5% below 1990 levels. Since this was acheived by market forces rather than government regulation, Obama and environmentalists almost completely ignore this achievement. Obamas new proposal will lower US CO2 output even more.
... (aka www.wattsupwiththat.com) has some comments on the good parts of Obama plan, but has some comments about the bad and ugly parts too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/25/the-presidents-climate-action-plan-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
Just go around the system and flip the public the bird. This bastard should be out back of the white house swinging at the end of a rope. As well as anyone that does not actively stand in his way of shredding the constitution.
"The speech addressed the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry up to 800,000 gallons of oil per day from Canada into the U.S. Obama indicated that approval for the pipeline would be tied to emissions goals."
He totally missed the point. We're not worried about air emissions. We're worried about pipeline spills and the abuse of eminent domain being used to take people's land and homes. Kill KeystoneXL.
This was an opportunity for O to really shine. He speaks of what he will stop, but does not speak of what will replace it. That is as stupid as 'drill, baby, drill' mantra chant of the neo-cons. I had hopes that he would have enough backbone to say that the US needs nukes and then push for thorium as well as IFR.
And as to Keystone, by allowing it to go through, he helps to lower the price of oil which helps the global economy, which makes it possible to build A.E. cheaper.
I think that he is allowing the neo-con's accusations to get to him.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Fight the Carbon! Ban the Flat Earthers! Carbon must be stopped before it kills us ALL!
Carbon pollution is unadulterated EVIL that must be STOPPED! The top reasons to support Obama's plan to limit and reduce carbon pollution:
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
'Climate Change' and 'global warming' are nothing but military/industrial complex trolling the world conversation...
Here's something everyone agrees on, on all sides: Pollution harms the environment.
By definition...it's human action...pollution exists. The notion from this 'Dennis Prager wisest men on the planet' crap is IRRELEVANT to the political discussion. Whether melting caps is natural or not has **no impact** on the Federal Government's legal need to regulate pollution.
That's what arguing about 'climate change' and 'global warming' does for the polluters, gives them a straw man to let them keep **polluting**
Pollution exists and with certainty businesses will (especially in the USA) pollute as much as their profit margins allow for in the end.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Most people, I find, aren't really aware of the ramifications of Administrative Law and the evolution of the Executive Branch. Over the past couple of centuries, Congress had passed laws and created agencies under the purview of the President to administrate. Over time, this has resulted in a massive federal system of administrative agencies who have the power to issue regulations based on their interpretation of the law. This has been found Constitutional, since it's nothing but the natural outgrowth of "Congress makes laws, the President executes them," but sometimes it produces shocking results to the lay person. Kind of like the patent system and "limited time," perhaps the administrative apparatus has gone far beyond its original intent, but by the letter of the law, that's perfectly fine. It's a matter for the voters and Congress to fix it, not the courts.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Having to pay much more for electricity will mean having less money left over for food, which means less obesity!
Imagine how much weight they'll lose if droughts like last year's put an end to meat and dairy production. Global warming will make America a vegan's dream come true!
There is just no end to the benefits from artificially inflating the cost of energy.
Oh, if only they could save us as much as dumping the costs of production on our children and grandchildren has!
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The House needs more things to vote to repeal over and over, Obamacare just isn't enough to keep them occupied.
What a leftist jerk off. He'll never get anything through the congress, but he will do damage to the economy. I am holding a bunch Trans Canada stock though and when Keystone XL gets approved I am going to make some serious money.
an ill wind that blows no good
I hope this is sarcasm, because the Montreal Protocol is widely hailed as one of the greatest successes in international cooperation and pollution control. As a result of the treaty, ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere (as measured in equivalent chlorine) have declined by 10%, and the ozone hole over Antarctica is poised to have resorted by 1 million square km (of a peak of 25 million square km) by 2015.
Really, the only failure of the Montreal Protocol was the promotion of HCFC-22 which does less ozone damage but is a major greenhouse gas. (It's being phased out for more ozone-safe refrigerants, but it'll be up there for centuries.)
Does anyone remember the introduction of catalytic converters for cars? What was it we were told? We were told the converters would convert the noxious emissions into harmless water...and carbon dioxide.
Well, when the alternative is carbon monoxide, unburned gasoline, and NOx, I think we'll take the CO2 and water. But just because it's non-toxic doesn't mean that it's not a pollutant.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I see a lot of smoke and mirrors. I read the article and most of it does not make a whole lot of sense. They are trundling out the same old song and dance "we must fund research into 'alternate' energy sources such as solar or wind in order to lower our dependance on foreign oil" (bullet points 3 and 6). They have been parading alternate energy funding about ever since the oil embargos of the 70's. Of course the funding rapidly dries up after the public is distracted by the latest "problem" being pushed by the media.
Is there anything that's doesn't change temperature, won't get hot or cold? Put it in a fridge or oven and it just stays the same. Perhaps some exotic particle only found in an expensive science experiment? Maybe not even then. So, there's no reason to think a gas doesn't change temperature. Put enough of it into the atmosphere and now you've created an artificial heat sink in the sky. It will warm up and cool down. As it cools the heat goes away in all directions including back to earth. How to tell if this will be a problem? Get some smart people with big computers to do some experiments.
jus thave the nsa spy on everyone and take there idea when it seems best....
Seriously, This isn't all of the republicans fault. There are plenty of democrats that are involved in "dirty" energy. It also isn't a matter of democrats caving to Republican demands but nice try. This excuse was tried when there was a democratic supermajority.
What is really the problem is how politicians are put into power. There is a reason that they called it the millionaires club. While efforts were made to curtain the phenomena that "if you weren't a millionaire already, you would be by the end of the senate term", the problem has shifted to campaign contributions from UNIONS and CORPORATIONS on both sides of the aisle. Last presidential election even was the most heavily spent. You get money for the campaign and when you are in, you pay the piper. Don't tell me that there aren't lobbyists for every sector of life with a gainful monetary incentive.
You just compared coal emissions to the deliberate slaughter of millions of people. I invoke Godwin's law. You lose.
if it just changes the environment, it's not 'pollution'....
grafting a branch onto a tree "changes" it, but it is vastly different than pouring used motor oil all over the tree...
one is 'change' the other is a *type* of change we have a special word for, for when the "change" is a "change" that harms...pollution
AC trolls...getting modded up is what bugs me most...
Thank you Dave Raggett
I see democrats are still good at what they do best...calling names.
It took 4.5 billion years, but Obama is finally going to do something about that uncooperative, ever changing climate! Hopefully Obama's plan will make sure the Earth's climate will stay at exactly 2013 values until the Earth is incinerated by the Sun in 7.5 billion years.
The 2013 Obama Regime represents a greater threat to the world than 1936 Adolph Hitler Regime.
Obama must be stopped.
The European Union MUST invade the U.S.A., defeat his Department of Defense and Homeland Security Agency and National Security Council and then capture Barak Obama and his supplicants, alive, and render them to trial for Crimes Against Humanity.
I welcome their summary executions broadcast on public open access channels and frequencies.
The dead body of Obama hanging by rope from a gallows erected in front of the Congress will be a beautiful sight.
To think we have to live with this tyrant for three more years. . .
-- Jimtown Kelly
Hey everyone!!! Let's all argue about the new energy stuff, so that we all forget about
* The scandal where the IRS used its power to attack the President's opposition
* The scandal where the FBI monitored a reporter and their family for reporting the news
* The scandal where the FBI monitored the Associated Press phone records
* The scandal where the NSA continues to monitor and record all americans' telephone metadata
* The scandal where more than 100 innocent people continue to be held in Guantanamo Bay, even after 10 years
* The scandal where the NSA investigated then-senator Barak Obama
* The scandal where the Attorney General's office oversaw the sale of firearms to Mexican narco-terrorists
* The scandal where the CIA sold weapons to Syrian terrorists (not just rebels, but organizations that the US has classified as "terrorist"
Oh, and did anyone see the latest episode of the Bachelor?
A metaphorical moment in the White House Rose Garden on a vey hot June day 2013 but the heat is not from the Sun this day.
Las Vegas bets that Obama pissed one pint of blood and shit two pints of blood.
We are getting closer to the moment of truth !
And the constitution of the USA showed so much promise. What a shame. Between the Immigration Bill and EPA enforced lies by Executive Order. the USA, I'm afraid, very afraid, is sunk. Which do you think will be the first State to attempt to secede?
First, I want to point out that you essentially agree with me, given your response.
Your issue is carbon:
Assumption alert! I never said if I think carbon is a pollutant. You set up that straw man and awkwardly tried to make a big huffy point ('stop breathing' essentially...)
So you're a troll for sure.
You can attempt to redeem yourself by defining pollution, since we both agree it exists. Say what IS and IS NOT pollution and why. What is the threshold of 'harm' in your mind?
Give a real answer to that and you can maybe untrollface yourself ;)
Thank you Dave Raggett
No, I meant that literally! It's part of any detailed discussion on climate change.
I see they have followed the Aussie lead with the term "Carbon Pollution." Too bad the power cost spike in my neighborhood was so bad, people are burning the scrub to heat their homes and nothing says "carbon pollution" to me like having someone a few houses over trying burning wet and green wood. I now have to run an air filter 24x7 just to keep the smog levels in my house down to reasonable levels. I'm now using the electric heater rather than the gas heater because the gas heater requires too much outside polluted air to come into the house. With many of my neighbors doing the same thing, I'm guessing our total carbon foot print is going up and not down.
Warming planet = warmer seas.
Warmer seas = more water.
More water = bigger and more powerful hurricanes.
The causal link is pretty damn clear.
If you're saying that the CO2 isn't making the place warmer than it would have been without it, prove it.
U fail.
Since there is at least a 24 hour lag on switching on/off a nuclear power station it is not dispatchable. It's "baseload".
Moreover, DEMAND isn't steady and varies with time.
Solar varies pretty much in synch with demand and Wind varies pretty much in anti-phase.
Therefore your "complaint" is merely a line you've heard and taken to heart. You don't actually know what it means.
Whatever happened to the good old "War on " response? Are our US friends somehow slacking? "Plan on Climate Change", hah! I am disappoint ;-)
... Bonobo, take your plan and shove it up your ass, along with a fucking drone. And before you go suck Mullah Omar's cock and the Talibans shit on your face, give back the Nobel Prize you didn't deserve to begin with. Got it, Bonobo, or are you too stupid to read anything that's not a teleprompter?
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
One of their top executives got to be one of Obama's advisors. Then, as things got competitive in the power plant industry in Texas, they built a plant nearby in Mexico. And wouldn't you know it, federal regulations approved by said advisor forced American power plants out of business but didn't bother the new GE plant(s).
But no, I didn't say that and forget how it sounds. They were really only just trying to help the environment.
I notice that as soon as Edward Snowden leaked that the government is violating the First and Fourth Amendments by illegally collecting data from innocent citizens, suddenly the newspaper headlines were all about the President's plans for the environment. Where are the stories about Congresspeople being arrested?
what we needs and wants is a climate action plan...someday the star in the center of our universe is going to explode...we need to develop environmental controls and controlled climate structures...
Carbon pollution or CO2 or CH4 emissions....
Greenhouse gasses, global albedo or regional albedo changes.
On quick review he has yet to establish a credible climate and weather research foundation to make these assertions and worse he is making regulations based on incomplete science.
It is important to not minimize this issue but it is also important to understand the issue.
The most obvious conflict is that we have agencies that have kittens when a portion of the ocean goes negative on the oxygen balance and the sea floor sees piles of organic (carbon rich) material building up. If we want CO2 to be removed and sequestered these kitten lovers are getting in the way of this natural process. Another carbon neutral heat source can be hemp or wood yet wood burning stoves are being eliminated one by one and not being replaced by equally neutral fuel.
Insulation.... insulation is perhaps the single best strategy to improve dependency on foreign fuel. New and existing home insulation programs are not getting the attention they deserve.
The news media and legislative regulation camps need to be better educated.... Right now we have a gaggle of near fools, clearly self serving, clearly agenda pushing, clearly unable to balance a family budget.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
"Only needs 5 million to prove it [works]"
Why don't they Kickstarter a nuclear reactor?
gosgog:
Not a member of the "FLAT EARTH SOCIETY", then you'll know that Climate Change is here to stay, and its a natural function altho' in this last century, we have considerably contributed to it. INSURANCE....(MAFIA based industry right.?..pay us every month or we'll see that what ever you own is destroyable & irreplaceable!). And for years there was always an unclaimable clause "Act of God"...ha! Ha!...well there is no GOD, or if there is I'm sure the Pope thinks he/her a nice guy! But then the insurance folks said "hey we're missing a bet!", dump the clause, we can insure all those idiots who build big Fancy houses, on the Ocean side of the road (Galveston to Freeport, Texas)
and if they're wiped out by the nearest Hurricane, so what! WE JUST 'JACKUP THE RATES', and all those other suckers INLAND rates go up to cover it! Aaah Money, Money! makes the world go round.
Why don't you turn off your computers at the NSA, Mr. Obama?
When Obama tries to demonstrate that he cares about the well being of America I can only laugh. What sinister ulterior motive is there to this carbon reduction plan?