Slashdot Mirror
Proposal For United Nations To Study Climate-Cooling Technologies Rejected (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A push to launch a high-level study of potentially risky technological fixes to curb climate change was abandoned on Thursday at a U.N. environmental conference in Nairobi, as countries including the United States raised objections. "Geoengineering" technologies, which are gaining prominence as international efforts to curb climate-changing emissions fall short, aim to pull carbon out of the atmosphere or block some of the sun's warmth to cool the Earth. They could help fend off some of the worst impacts of runaway climate change, including worsening storms and heatwaves, backers say. But opponents argue the emerging technologies pose huge potential risks to people and nature, and could undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not least because many are backed by fossil-fuel interests. Observers at the U.N. Environment Assembly in Nairobi said the Swiss-backed proposal was rejected in part because it called for a "precautionary principle" approach to geoengineering the climate. That principle says great care must be taken in starting activities that have unclear risks for human health or the environment. The United States, Saudi Arabia and Brazil were among the strongest opponents of the proposal, with Japan also expressing reservations.
It must warm, or else.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiiiiiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iiiiiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iiiiiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii
iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii
iiitKMWSiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii
itQMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi
iJHMMMMMMMW6iiiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i
iiiYNMMMMMMMN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii
iiiii5NMMMMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii
iiiiiii5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiiiiiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iiiiiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iiiiiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii
iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii
iiitKMWSiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii
itQMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi
iJHMMMMMMMW6iiiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i
iiiYNMMMMMMMN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii
iiiii5NMMMMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii
iiiiiii5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiiiiiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iiiiiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iiiiiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii
iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii
iiitKMWSiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii
itQMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi
iJHMMMMMMMW6iiiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i
iiiYNMMMMMMMN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii
iiiii5NMMMMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii
iiiiiii5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
You don't solve a problem by trying to tip the scales in the other direction. You solve it by doing things in a balanced way from now on so that over time, the net result is balanced.
It's not like Lincoln said "okay, that's enough with black slavery, let's make the white man be slaves for a couple of centuries to balance things out"
You fix a problem by doing the right thing, today, and moving forward.
In this particular case, it means passing laws which put stricter limits on emissions than what currently exist, so that manufacturers are forced (yes forced, because as much as we might want them to, they aren't going to do it entirely voluntarily... or certainly not at the speeds that are required) to innovate and come up with long term environmentally friendly solutions to the problems that we are facing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Hang the nazi faggots high! Be proud to murder nazis wherever you see them, it's America's proudest tradition!
We need to understand these things better, knowledge is power, a little knowledge can do exactly as you described, bad things. We need a FULL understanding of this desperately.
[($)]
What should be done is obvious: start with emission reductions and invest heavily in sequestration techniques. It is also obvious how to distribute the costs - according to cumulative CO2 contributions.
Good luck having this happen with the greedy and selfish US having a veto vote.
Mark Shepard on Restoration Agriculture - "Annual agriculture is all about living through our concepts... our idea we've imposed on reality & when reality doesn't behave according to our idea, what do we do? We input... we can never input enough to make our false concept correct." http://bit.ly/1GnbtAA
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
You don't care about fixing a problem but forcing a preferred solution down people's throats.
You can see the same thing in the way nuclear isn't even a thought in the Green New Insanity.
The UN already has plans for fighting global warming... This idea of using technology to counter-act global warming runs afoul of their preferred plan: Agenda 21 (depopulate the humans).
We'll revisit this proposal in 20 years when its obvious that everyone's efforts to try and curb emissions has completely failed. Keeping with the trend of humanity being completely reactionary in all this.
Americans "hate Nazis" only in Hollywood propaganda. In real life, Dr. Joseph Merkwurdigliebe was buried in Arlington with honors after being snatched from the jaws of justice and brought home to work for DARPA.
The problem is that climate change has become totally politicized. It wasn't always this way. In 2007, a debate moderator asked the Republican candidates if they thought climate change was a "serious problem". All but Fred Thompson agreed. That is unimaginable today. Denialism has become a right wing litmus test.
The left isn't much better. They mostly see climate change as an opportunity to push an agenda for taxes, coercive big government, and centralization. So they reject even considering solutions that don't serve that agenda. They don't fear geo-engineering will have unintended consequences. They fear the opposite: That it will turn out to be a good solution.
Then an extremist shooter goes nuts live streaming a terror attack...whatever they were installing was apparently "just in time". Now we just have to wait for the prewritten legislation to get rubber stamped through congress by both parties. Watch for Patriot Act 2 this summer!
always have kittens at the mere thought that someone might be able to solve the problem without carting trillions of dollars out of the USA and distributing it worldwide. I mean, if we were to figure out how to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and have pre-industrial CO2 levels in the atmosphere in 20 years, then they would have no reason to attempt to steal all our money and bring poverty to the citizens of the USA.
Its hard to believe that there are those that do NOT see that this movement is engineered in Moscow in order to damage their chief rival, the USA. The fact that those who beat this drum are aghast at geo-engineering is ample evidence that the whole thing has, as a goal, the diminishment of the USA rather than actually solving the CO2 in the atmosphere problem.
No, this is not a "solution" to Global Warming, they specifically call them mitigations and no, they are not proven or without massive risks.
"That principle says great care must be taken in starting activities that have unclear risks for human health or the environment." - LEARN TO READ, REPUBLICAN TRASHMIND FAGGOT.
Bill got caught lying 12-25 times repeatedly stating "Blood plasma is sterile" and then later that "The Chinese Govt does not directly censor Chinese citizens" and other absolute bullshit head-in-ass retard-level lies. You're not trustworthy.
You are not a source of information that anyone should or even could trust, knowing your dishonest history. Sorry. That's what accountability means when you get caught lying repeatedly, over and over, even after directly corrected.
You're a liar, Bill. Nice 100% false equivocation based on an unfounded assertion, you cheesedick faggot.
" They mostly see climate change as an opportunity to push an agenda for taxes, coercive big government, and centralization" = Bill is just a liar, again and again and again and again.
When we want a retarded Republican incel blurting out known-and-provably-false-20-year-old-never-happened-conspiracy-memes, we'll ask Trump why his casinos went bankrupt and watch the bullshit fly. You're a fucking moron lol.
APGW is too much of a cash cow for Political leaders to sacrifice power over. The solution can only allowed to be a political one, it can never be an economic or technological one.
The proposal should go forward if for nothing else than to learn more, regardless of whether the technology/research is useful or not... used or not. Everyone nay saying it likely feels threatened because they are only driven by fear and ignorance. Seriously what is it going to hurt to research it? Other than your personal politics?
the research could actually go towards helping prove that APGW is real, rather than just a theory. It may also help identify better metrics so we can make an accurate prediction as well... since we know they have only failed in all of their models.
"That principle says great care must be taken in starting activities that have unclear risks for human health or the environment." - LEARN TO READ, REPUBLICAN TRASHMIND FAGGOT.
Then we'll let you start fucking with our world's climate maybe. Maybe.
Um, no. The left does not fear that climate change will have a good solution. You're just being silly.
This has nothing to do with your money you fucking mong, and everything to do with EVERYONE'S air and quality of life.
Eat a cock, Reagan would piss on your head.
captcha: ecstasy
Yes, they fear that the solution is something other than fascist socialistic authoritarian power.
Just look at the New Green Deal. It's ostensibly about climate, but almost entirely about social justice, communism, and the destruction of America as a world power.
Pretending to know what anyone other than their inbred uneducated anti-science denialist pro-industry pro-pollution pro-ignorance and even pro-treason idiotic selves are actually calling for? Go fuck a straw man you moron.
Take "sterile blood plasma" blathering Bill with you.
Good to know Saudi Arabia is looking out for us. LOL
The UN has been transformed over the past several decades to transfer wealth and power from group of people to another. It's mission has totally changed and should be abolished.
And herein we see the Dunning-Kruger effect. Nuclear good, geo-engineering bad! Am I a nuclear engineer or a climate modeler? Why no of course not! But I read third hand sources that wrote opinion articles on these subjects that tangentially might be related to these professions. Thus hear me internet! Hear me when I say we should do nothing to stop the doom of all human civilization. All is well!
As someone who had an ancestor working for the allies in sigint and later for IBM as a translator at the warcrimes tribunal and who, if it isn't obvious, is very much of German descent, you sir are an absolute, jumped up idiot.
Um yes ... the Trotsky-slut bitch.progs have no desire for anything , but the reduction of USA std. of Living. They expect to gain power from those dispossessed of jobs and property. Trotsky-slut bitch.progs ought to be bitch.slapped into the gutter, pissed on and fed to DemoRat drug-dealer pittbulls ... snarl ... bite ... riptear ...
Yes, and in order to gain that knowledge you must... NOT study it?
They didn't vote down implementing technologies, they voted down gaining knowledge.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The final solution to their blathering ignorance. Burn them.
If it was real, fuels producing CO2 would be immediately outlawed for anything but emergencies. No more flying, no more cars. Out law mobile phones and computers. No more gas stoves. No more importing and exporting... etc.
What is being done now? Tax hikes. Why? To increase revenue. Noting is being done to stop the so called climate crisis. If it was a real problem real things would be done and done NOW. It is not a problem and no one thinks so since no one is doing nothing (unless you count flying jets all over the place to talk about how flying jets all over the place is destroying the climate)
If global warming was caused by us adopting technologies without understanding the consequences, why would anyone think that the solution is adopting more technologies the consequences of which we don't understand?
Um, no. The left does not fear that climate change will have a good solution. You're just being silly.
I don't think so. It is not just geo-engineering that the left opposes. They are also opposed to carbon sequestration and nuclear. Both of these use our existing industrial infrastructure, and don't require any big new government initiatives. The economics of building new nukes is questionable, but shutting down working existing nukes was insane.
The left loves big coercive new initiatives. Yet most of the progress that we have made so far, such as LED bulbs, efficient variable speed motors, better insulation, more efficient engines, better batteries, cheap gas from hydraulic fracturing to replace coal, have all come from innovations by capitalists.
The problem with the "Green New Deal" is that it ignores solutions that are working, and focuses instead on spending lots of tax dollars on things that have failed.
A very small but visible segment of the left does fear a good solution. They're the homeopathic types who see climate change as a sort of Earth goddress retribution for technology, through the lens of their back-to-nature values. They want the only solution to be the end of industry and return to a fantasy idyllic native american tribal balance with nature.
I certainly wouldn't say they have any political sway in the democratic party, though.
This space intentionally left blank
I actually took time to search for info and that is what it comes down to (*). Why should we spend billions when the science of it is not clear i.e. we are shooting while not seeing the perp. What is worse - most of the effects of the measures I see my government and the 'activists' are pushing have only one thing that one can say about them - they are damned expensive. Some of them are probably outright dangerous on top. Turning off all the coal power plants as well as the nuclear power plants is idiotic for any nation unless the decision makers have diesel generators and do not give a flying f. about the rest of the population.
* - Go and do your own search on it. I did this not because I had doubts 8b humans have no impact but because I was wondering why again and again the news of terrible things that are attributed to global warming proved not to be true. One such case was the sickly polar bear that some 'journalist' made a photo of at the the end of 2014. The recent discussion of so called environmentalists about CO2 and NOx on German streets made me even more angry as they not only have no data to back up their danger claims but also positioned measuring stations deliberately in wrong locations. I have now developed skepticism to all these 'activists' claim. Greta phenomenon is also making me wonder who is manipulating us and for what benefit. So these are the reasons I took time and actually tried to look for it. I am not a scientists so I have no real understanding of all of processes involved of course. As an engineer I have a clue what complexity of modeled processes means however.
If you had an ancestor who was being paid by IBM during the WWII, he or she was receiving 3rd Reich money paid for helping the Nazis run their concentration camps. Be proud.
You do such a thorough job of "speaking for them" - perhaps they should hire you as their spokesperson.
Why can't we just plant more trees?
Atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestration is not a very good solution, as the concentration of CO2 is so low, that removal will require a huge amount of energy, and this energy will have to be produced in some way.
As for nuclear, it is no less problematic than the fossil fuels. First, it is a heavily subsidized industry which will simply not exist on its own if not for the "need" of several countries to maintain nuclear arsenals. Extraction and enrichment are very resource intensive and polluting operations; reactor operation is inherently unsafe regardless of what you hear; reprocessing the spent fuel is dangerous and a huge risk in all possible ways (health, political and terrorist, economic, ecological), and storing nuclear waste is still a problem with no solution; most of the spent fuel is currently stored on site at the nuclear plants in conditions that aren't good enough even for chemical poisons. On top of it, nuclear power generation is about as efficient as internal combustion engine.
There is no scenario on Earth where nuclear is a winner.
Before having to "take carbon out of the atmosphere", just go to the source, it will be cheaper and way easier. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You obviously know nothing about nuclear power outside of media hype over bombs, chernobyl, and fukushima. Go read for yourself which is worse: the full supply chain for solar cells or nuclear power. I would say you would be surprised, but you won't do it because this was a disingenuous statement out of ignorance.
Source?
Yeah, buddy, except that I am a senior reactor physicist at a real nuclear power plant and I do nuclear power for a living. But come on, be specific, teach me, how is the wind turbine supply chain worse than fuel reprocessing?
Think of the tragedy if we solved the problem overnight. The attempt to redistribute wealth from America to hostile countries who hate us would fail. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Either we do something expensive to undo CO2's effects or we do something LESS (burn carbon fuels). This is pretty simple thinking and the only reason why it still gets questioned as to which to choose is because there's a shitload of cash in burning carbon fuels and that money in a capitalist system has much more power than people do.
Gee, solving multiple problems at once? We can't have that!
Ezekiel 23:20
All the things mentioned are much less a problem than the simple fact that new nuclear costs over ten cents per kWh. Nobody's going to build such a thing anymore. Why, when wind turbines cost 60-70% less?
Ezekiel 23:20
That's such a cop-out statement.
Pollution is bad, regardless of the long term impacts on the planet. I've been to Beijing, the orange haze is nasty.
We should be pushing technologies that eliminate the largest portion of pollutants.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Democrats believe climate change began 100 years ago. Everyone else knows the climate has always been and always will be changing.
Setting aside the logical impossibility of applying the "precautionary principle", the sentence is ambiguous. Who is the "it" calling for the precautionary principle? Is it the Swiss plan, as the wording implies, or the Assembly, which makes more sense in the broader context of the piece? If "it" is the plan to study geoengineering, and the Assembly is being cautious overall, then why the objection (unless suddenly they realized I'm right and the precautionary principle is nonsense) to more caution? If "it" is the Assembly, then the sentence is horribly written but at least it fits with the overall context of the Assembly saying it's a bad/unsafe idea to look at geoengineering solutions.
Carbon isn't a pollutant. It's a natural part of the life process.
Your ilk has purposefully conflated it with actual pollution, because of said agenda above.
I wish I could believe but when the left got all on board the climate change train, Nuclear was the best solution but they would have nothing to do with it. So no I don't think they want actual solutions.
The left isn't much better. They mostly see climate change as an opportunity to push an agenda for taxes, coercive big government, and centralization.
More projection from the emotionally defective right. Jesus Christ, you're a fucking retard and I get so goddamned tired of reading your bullshit
I don't know who you mean by "The Left" but most liberals are just regular folks who are concerned about the environment. They are not Trotsky-ite subversives, just like "The Right" isn't all Neo-nazi hate mongers. They are just poorly-informed Fox-viewers (just kidding)
Just masking the symptoms of any global problem would only make it much worse (over time), but people could not see it anymore!!!
Until the underlying problem grows into "impossible to mask anymore" stage & suddenly released @ full power!!!
Not to mention, after geoengineering first done, whenever climate does anything bad (flood/drought/hurricane/storm) anywhere in the world, those countries would blame (& ask money for all damages), whatever countries made geoengineering happen!!!
Just look at the New Green Deal. It's ostensibly about climate, but almost entirely about social justice, communism, and the destruction of America as a world power.
Yes, but surely it has SOME downside?
*rimshot*
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Seconded. If you want the country to become ‘woke’ on the carbon problem, then you might want to try not automatically rejecting every technology that might work at scale.
The moment you talk about CO2 as pollution you reveal yourself to be an anti-science idiot, making the the of what you say about anything pointless to read.
The original New Deal, Roosevelt’s plan, included massive hydro projects that generations later are still the best renewable energy sources we have. It also summoned nuclear energy into being, the largest-scale carbon free source that we can still apply today.
The Green New Deal explicitly rejects both technologies, which is why it’s not going to save us any carbon. At best it will create some make-work jobs for wind turbine builders.
Right. We don't even know how to end poverty or what to do with our trash and now we want to control the climate. Stupid humans.
If your solution is to tear down a society that has contributed to the highest standard of living of all time for the majority of the planet, maybe your solution is wrong.
https://blog.chron.com/thetexican/2014/04/when-boris-yeltsin-went-grocery-shopping-in-clear-lake/
They already had proposals that were not to study, but to implement, despite the verbiage used here.
Says it's a plot by the Chinese to keep America from being great again!
They're doing a pretty shit job of it with all the food aid and and free medicine.
Wind turbines don't provide consistent energy. You can't rely on them to provide enough power when you've got a heat wave or cold snap. They're fine as a supplemental power source, but nuclear works great as a reliable source of power.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
So, obviously, curbing emissions is clearly the best approach to arresting climate change. Lowering emissions is Plan A.
But what is wrong with creating a Plan B? Or a complementary project that enhances Plan A?
That study is basically a detailed look at some technologies that might help. It wouldn't implement them; it wouldn't change anything. The purpose of that study is nothing more than to understand our options.
This decision is asinine, but I wouldn't expect anything else from a denialist administration.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
This makes sense if you understand that these people are not so much pro-environment as they are anti-technology.
Wind turbines don't provide consistent energy. You can't rely on them to provide enough power when you've got a heat wave or cold snap. They're fine as a supplemental power source, but nuclear works great as a reliable source of power.
.That completely ignores that there are storage techniques.
Of course the need to vote against gaining knowledge because it has a well known liberal bias.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
That's one of those annoying red herrings. Who is 'automatically rejecting every technology that might work at scale'? I can try to speculate who you're attacking here and why, but f_ that. It's up to you to be specific who you're talking about. Especially because I don't know any group that rejects all solutions. They might reject your favorite solution, but then you're at the same level as the ones you're attacking.
Yes, we should clean up after ourselves and not leave a toxic waste dump for the generations to come, yes, we should limit toxic emissions that can hurt our atmosphere and the air we breath but as it relates to climate changing it's time to adapt to a changing environment rather than trying crazy experiments to "cool" the planet because as the sci-fi geo-engineering joke goes ... this is how the world will end. Large scale focused human meddling with the atmosphere/climate will never end well .... we don't even begin to really understand all of the facets of what makes our climate such that pretty much all weather and climate models are desperately incomplete so any one measure or group of measures could still have serious unforeseen consequences.
Well yeah, the climate deniers need to maintain internal consistency with their collective delusion. Otherwise we'd be led to suspect they're just paid stooges for the coal industry.
-Bob-
They are also opposed to carbon sequestration [wikipedia.org] and nuclear. Both of these use our existing industrial infrastructure, and don't require any big new government initiatives
How, exactly, do you plan on widespread carbon sequestration without a government initiative making it profitable?
Also, nuclear requires a government initiative to deal with the waste since the government is required to deal with it by law. Also, it requires a new government initiative in the form of massive subsidies to make nuclear profitable.
You can not get a full understanding without doing it. And doing it has an enormous potential for disaster.
What would you study? We're already at the point where all that's left would be implementing it, and studying the results.
That implementation has a potential for massive disaster, and is unlikely to produce a feasible clean-up system - none of the proposals are efficient enough to do at sufficient scale to actually fix climate change.
So, huge potential downside affecting vast numbers of people. Tiny potential upside. The alternative, "reduce emissions and stop clear cutting everything", has very little risk and will solve the problem in about the same timetable.
And their utilization is about 15%, which makes it instantly a few times more expensive than nuc. And requirement of backup cources. And transport.
Look at Germany - complete disaster:CO2 emmissions per kWh INCREASED since they started their "green" program pasing out the nukes (they are approx. half-way through to zero now) and are one of the worst in Europe. And surrounding states must constantly go through import/export cycles with Ger. to ballance the instability. Everything for what? a few percent for Angela's popularity (she was pro nuclear but she made this decission to boost her popularity among generally anti-nuke German population,and in worst possible moment - during the Fukushima panic). Angela's departure is already a decade overdue.
Wind turbines don't provide consistent energy.
That is true locally, but not if they are widely disbursed. The wind is always blowing somewhere.
The winds are stronger and steadier at greater heights, so taller turbines produce more reliable power.
Offshore wind is very reliable. Above about about 35N, ocean winds never stop.
.That completely ignores that there are storage techniques.
The problem is that the costs of storage negate many of the benefits of wind.
We need better storage tech, but we should also be building a national HVDC network.
Who is 'automatically rejecting every technology that might work at scale'?
The participants in the UN conference in Nairobi, for starters.
Climate change is a serious issue, and no potential solution should be summarily rejected for political reasons.
It is reasonable to oppose geo-engineering, since we don't yet know enough about the consequences.
It is NOT reasonable to oppose scientific research on geo-engineering out of fear that it may actually work well.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestration is not a very good solution
Indeed. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about sequestration of highly concentrated CO2 coming directly out of power plants and cement factories.
Using Oxy-fuel combustion, which removes the N2 before burning, results in almost pure CO2 in the exhaust. The CO2 can then either be injected into geological shale formations, or sold as an industrial feedstock.
If it the CO2 is injected, it can improve the yield from shale gas fields, which results in even more CO2 reduction as the cheap gas displaces much dirtier coal.
Laws are not all tyranny.
Marginally true.
But remember: Every time somebody says "There ought to be a LAW!", what they are really saying is "I want people with guns to use violence to stop other people from doing things I don't like!"
Government is violence, and should be used sparingly.
Sometimes that's legitimate, I approve of using violence to stop murders, rapes, and theft. Often it's not, I do not approve of using violence to prevent people from speaking their opinions, for example.
"for the majority of the planet"
wrong
Denialism has become a right wing litmus test.
In the US. Not in the rest of the world. And even in the US it's only partly true. Outright denialists are mostly a few gatekeepers who have outsized influence. The rest is people who aren't outright denialists but don't want to lose their lifestyle or be told what to do.
displacing much dirtier coal with cheap gas is not a CO2 reduction
Just Sayin'
You solve a problem... by solving the problem.
You do NOT solve it by saying
"This class of (potential) solutions BAD BAD BAD! Forbidden to even Look!"
"You fix a problem by doing the right thing, today, and moving forward." ...Who gets to decide what is "the Right Thing"
But
"today" ...few solutions come without side effects. ...'cus Terrorists
Are we sure that the Right Thing is less bad than other Things?
I offer for your consideration the USA Patriot Act.
That had to be passed Today
Are you completely pleased with the results?
You 'talk' of "...forced (yes forced..." ...Are)
I ask you to consider the case where something You want (or advocate or even
is "...forced (yes forced..." to be other than you would have it.
That will never happen, of course...
Phrases like "Everybody/Nobody should..."
"...should be forced to..."
"...balancing freedom against..."
"...only cost you a little more..."
tend to send shivers up my spine....
displacing much dirtier coal with cheap gas is not a CO2 reduction
Yes it is. Gas has twice the energy per kg of carbon emission.
In America, replacing coal with gas has done more to reduce carbon emissions than everything else that we have done combined.
Leftists are not liberal. How do you tell a liberal from a leftist? Easy. Liberals believe in free speech. They might disagree with what you say, but they'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Leftists like yourself use censorship as a weapon of first resort. Being offended is reason enough to use this extreme measure. Intimidation is another frequently used tactic.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
does anybody own one?? kiss it goodbye after dimmed sky. and those solar panels you just put on your house? no worky. i hope plants dont mind dimmed sun...maybe beaches will be filled with full coverage parkas afterwards
Dude, we know for a fact that you don't want to help any fucking body but your rich white boys. We don't forget who you are when we log off. I've been hearing you spout your conservative libertarian crap for years on here. You absolutely don't give two shits about poor people and certainly not the minority ones. Just the other day you went off the handle about the muslims again when shitting on Rep Omar was all the rage. You simply hate liberals and want to oppose out of principal. That's fine. That's your right. But fuck off with the "fixing our own house" bullshit. You don't want to do that either!
Carbon isn't a pollutant. It's a natural part of the life process.
So is water but you can drown in it; drink too much of it and it's a huge hassle when too much of it falls from the sky.
Is Mr. Burns trying to sell more Nuclear power again?!
> ost of the progress that we have made so far, such as LED bulbs, efficient variable speed motors, better insulation, more efficient engines, better batteries, cheap gas from hydraulic fracturing to replace coal, have all come from innovations by capitalists.
When these capitalists were compelled by regulations put in place by Democrats & Democratic Government.
Remember the emissions standard and the light bulb phaseout put by the Obama administration that accelerated LED bulbs to market?