We don't need literally room temperature superconductors in order to have a lot of the benefits that people associate with room temperature superconductors. -23 C is within essentially close to the range of conventional refrigeration equipment. Once one doesn't need to rely on liquid nitrogen cooling for superconductors, the general use goes way up. The pressure is of course a pretty big issue, but if for example one had something that was a superconductor at -30 C and 2 gigapascals that would be incredibly practically useful.
And it is worth keeping in mind that even superconductors which require very cold temperatures are now being produced and used in large enough quantities that we can use them as part of the regular electric grid. The US Eastern electric grid already has a superconducting cable in Long Island https://www.energy.gov/oe/downloads/long-island-hts-power-cable and the Tres Amigas Superstation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tres_Amigas_SuperStation is going to have superconducting lines to allow efficient transfer between the three major US grids (East, West and Texas). This sort of thing will also help renewable energy a lot; since right now, there's often more wind or solar power somewhere than one directly needs but hard to get it elsewhere, and then not enough wind or solar at some other time. More efficient grids mean that excess can be much more easily transferred to where it can be used.
I'm deeply sorry that you are unable or unwilling to do anything that will other people if it takes either you spending resources or having fewer tasty foods on occasion. No, I don't have any suggestions for people who apparently fundamentally lack a basic sense of altruism.
There is an entire world and many billions wanting a better life. I do not want to deny them a better standard of living and will not expect them to forfeit it because of climate guilt.
This isn't about "climate guilt"- in fact,many of the developing countries will suffer the most under climate projections. Heat waves in developing countries which are already in warm climates have far more of an impact on daily living and food production than they will in temperate climates in developed countries. But I agree that denying those people a better life is a bad idea: hence, reduce one's CO2 output so one doesn't harm them. And if one does want to make sure they do well, then donate to the Solar Electric Light Fund which gets solar panels in developing nations http://www.self.org/. If we do things right, then the developing grids will come online with minimal use of fossil fuels and so will get a high standard of living without any issues. But it is the height of hypocrisy to claim that because you don't want to deny them a high standard of living therefore you should eat a lot of meat and use CO2 now.
I should do something I can't afford because in 10 years I can make the money back and piety? I don't have money for these expensive things you ask for. Please, tell me how I am supposed to do these things I cannot afford.
I'm not asking you to do anything involving "piety" and I'm not telling you to do anything you cannot afford. If you cannot afford to buy solar panels then don't do it. But there's a serious problem in your line of logic when you say you won't buy solar panels or do anything else because you cannot afford it, but when pointed out that meat consumption is expensive and also damaging refuse to even consider reducing meat consumption. If one cannot afford to take those active steps, then that's all the more reason you should take the steps which actually would save you money in the short term; that's especially the case because the lower your income bracket the higher proportion of your income ends up going to food.
Again, you don't know what I have done or how I have lived my life but expect more money and more changes to my life because Europeans think their shit doesn't stink and per capita. No.
I don't know what you've done with your life. I do know that by your own description you are utterly unwilling to do any of the most basic steps to help out, even ones which will save you money, right now, literally today with no investment on your part. And yes, the European attitudes can be pretty annoying; although many European countries have done a lot of good, many have not. Moreover, some have been actively counterproductive, like Germany turning off its nuclear power as a supposed "green" move, but that doesn't change the basic parameters. And yes, per a capita matters because it reflects systemic and large-scale indications of what one can do. As for not knowing what you personally have done, you could of course state explicitly what you've done, but you haven't in this thread, and my tentative guess is that you haven't because you've done jack. I for example don't own a car (which also saves money) and rarely eat meat.
I'm skipping referencing your next
I don't care about Europe and what they are doing.
That's a strange claim to make given that you just said in your previous comment that "If everyone in the US became Luddites and lived to pre-industrial standards, it still woudln't matter because other countries will not be as determined." My point about Europe was in response to you claiming that you apparently care precisely about what other countries are doing.
I care about my standard of living and what I can do. Per capita doesn't mean shit to my life and I don't want my standard of living lowered. I probably have a lower average carbon consumption so why should I concern myself about per capita when, again, it doesn't matter what the US does if other countries don't care.
You appear to engaging in some degree of inconsistency, where you in one sentence say that you don't care about what other countries are doing and then argue that it doesn't matter what the US is doing if other countries aren't doing anything, when my entire point was that other countries are doing all sorts of things. And yes, per a capita does matter: it is a sign that very small changes in lifestyle can have a large impact. I don't know why you think you have a lower average carbon consumption (I presume you mean output not consumption there)- compared to whom? Certainly not the Europeans or most other people on this planet.
I enjoy eating meat and I will eat it when I want. I don't have money for a new car or solar panels. Do you have any suggestion that doesn't cost money or seem like Lent?
So in other words, you don't want to do something which will save money for you, even if you don't have much money right now, and you are willing to keep doing things which you know cause damage to everyone in the long-term, including yourself, so you can occasionally have tasty food. Do you not see a problem with that? In any event, I'm not even trying to suggest you don't eat meat, but eating less meat is a major way one can help out.
You don't know what I have done or how I live my life but expect more money and more action. Fuck off. Because right now, it seems like you are preaching a religion. "Give up the loins of your decadence and forfeit the pleasures of life before God. Fasten your belts and shiver in winter for warmth and eat not the swine or drink the milk of Bos taurus. Carbon Tax will save thy children in the last days before the coming apocalypse. You will be blessed tenfold the tithing you pay toward Gods son the Green Savior. We are all carbon using sinners and must suffer to redeem our souls. In the name of God, his Green Son, and the Holy Carbon Tax. Amen."
It is true that I don't personally know what you've done with your life. However, it is pretty clear from this conversation that you are unwilling to do any of the major steps that would actually be helpful. I'm not sure also why you have so much anger over this that you feel a need to tell someone who is commenting on what one can practically do to "fuck off." You appear to be also making some very bad pattern matching here. Yes, many religions engaged in self-denial and similar activity. That doesn't mean that reducing one's use of a specific resource can't make sense, and it doesn't mean that deliberately reducing consumption of some types of goods must somehow be a religion. The actual science and facts are that this can help. Simply ignoring the massive CO2 output created by meat consumption and regular cars and the like and labeling it a "religion" isn't a substantial or productive argument.
Note, I don't deny AGW or think the science is wrong or w/e. I don't like the Fear mongering, harping hippy hypocrites, and the solutions those people bring.
I don't know who the harping hippy hypocrites are in this context (if you mean the sort of people who claim to care about AGW but then try to block nuclear power plants, yeah, such
First of all, the US is one of the countries which is doing the least to help out with climate change. Note in contrast for example, that Sweden is reaching its 2030 goals for renewable energy by the end of the this year https://www.thelocal.se/20180716/sweden-to-reach-2030-renewable-energy-goal-in-2018. Moreover, the US per a capita CO2 production is over twice that of the EU and about three times the world average https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions. We're doing less than other countries, and have more that we can easily do. But many of the things that one can do, like eating less meat, getting a hybrid or electric car, getting home solar panels, will not just be good for the environment, but will save you money.
This is an extremely confused response. This essentially says that the more scientists are concerned about a problem the less you are concerned. If you keep seeing a lot of different articles and ways something might be a problem, and one isn't personally a subject matter expert, deciding to then dismiss all of it is the opposite of good logic. That said, it is true that by nature of media coverage the less concerning predictions about climate change get less attention in the general media, so you might not see them as much, but that doesn't change the fact that the broad consensus is pretty severe. Studies like this are trying to figure out just how severe that is, and even the mild predictions are pretty serious. Honestly, your response comes across a little as someone who has decided that you aren't going to bother making any even small changes in your lifestyle and then found a justification for it.
This doesn't seem to take into account that many grids are rapidly improving in terms of how much solar and wind they have in the grids. If an electric car hits breakeven compared to a highly efficient diesel car given 5 years given current rates for example, then in practice we should expect that to happen even earlier. Moreover, electric cars have very long potential lifespans since they contain few moving parts (there's correspondingly less maintenance on an electric car than on an ICE car). Of course, the most efficient thing to do is still to not have a car, and use public transport; unfortunately for many people that isn't a practical option.
Curiously, a lot of people pushing for climate issues are also in favor of more nuclear power. The main reasons that more of a push is being made currently for solar and wind is that wind and solar are in mnay contexts cheaper than nuclear power (as long as they aren't the entire grid) and that as a practical matter it takes years or decades to build a nuclear plant (for largely political reasons) so if we want to deal with things now, wind and solar make more sense.
There's no mysterious group trying to control everything. I've drastically reduced my meat consumption over the last few years precisely for this reason (and maybe eat meat about once a month). If you talk to climate scientists, a lot of them have become complete vegetarians, and they generally did so after becoming interested in climate issues. They aren't pushing the climate issue as part of some nefarious vegetarian or vegan plot.
It could have other uses as well, such as metallurgical analysis of damaged parts (such as from an airplane crash), and in the geological sciences as well.
Another related application is simply quality control. Non-destructive testing of parts is really tough. Having another way to examine them without damaging may be very useful.
You appear to be confusing two separate issues; whether gun control reduced crime rates by a lot with whether or not it was at all similar to alcohol prohibition. Alcohol prohibition wasn't just ineffective, but it also lead to a massive crime waves and literally thousands of additional deaths from tainted alcohol.
Bad comparison. Countries have tried restricting both firearms and alcohol. We know that banning alcohol goes badly in general (e.g. US prohibition, Islamic countries today). In contrast, over the last 50 years, many countries have substantially increased restrictions on firearms (the UK, Canada, and Australia), and we haven't seen the same problems from alcohol prohibition. Addictive substances built into culture are very different than weapons. There are some decent potential arguments for few restrictions on firearms(e.g. right of self-defense), but a comparison to alcohol empirically doesn't work.
Here's the thing though. The democrats ginned up roughly the same amount of fear and apprehension over Romney, W, Dole, Bush 41, and Reagan before him.
This wasn't at al l the same. You had people like George Will, and other moderate Republicans saying that Trump wasn't a normal Republican who they could support. I've spent every election since 1996 telling people on both ends of the political spectrum that it wouldn't be so bad if the candidate from the major opposing party won. There's one exception; this last election, because Trump really did represent a serious threat to the stability and functionality of American democracy and power. That some people cried wolf is not an excuse to ignore when the myriad people who hadn't previously been wolf criers start saying their's a wolf.
There's no substantial danger that Dems are going to deliberately stop nuclear power the way Germany did. But more to the point, the idea that nuclear power is somehow better than solar and wind is not true. While nuclear power for baseline power is really useful, the cost solar and wind is generally lower. More to the point, it takes a very long time to set up new nuclear plants. In contrast, the amount of time it takes to make a similar amount of solar or wind power is much lower. In the long run we'll likely transition to a nuclear heavy grid, but it isn't useful to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But let's put this aside and note that there's a lot on that list that you can do that isn't political.
Which just so happens to benefit wealthy elite on the coasts and conveniently infers blame on poorer people living more inland. How convenient for you.
I live in Iowa, so I'm not completely sure how you think things which benefit the "wealthy elite on the coasts" is convenient for me. Moreover, pretty much nothing on my list was coastal specific except for the New England Wind Fund. Everybody Solar for example is currently funding programs in the Dakotas and Idaho. The Solar Electric Light Fund doesn't put things in the US at all. And the only reason I mentioned the New England Wind Fund is because it is genuinely the best wind charity out there.
I know taking personal responsibility for yourself and sacrificing your own feel-good luxuries is opposite of modern liberalism these days, but please try.
This is strange for you to assert given that the first of the three categories I listed was explicitly matters of personal responsibility, and we follow the vast majority of them. My wife and I don't own a car at all, and the only times we eat meat are when we're visiting relatives who are highly carnivorous. That said, the scale of things matters: for example, you talk about not using electronics, but the CO2 levels of using most modern devices are pretty low. Similarly, eating at restaurants doesn't involve substantially more CO2 production than anything else (we don't go to restaurants often, but it has little to do with CO2). Personal responsibility is for such issues is much more common among people concern about climate change than you seem to realize.
No. There are some Democrats who aren't good about nuclear power certainly but most of the major Democrats are in favor of nuclear power. Hillary Clinton was explicitly in favor, as was Obama, Kerry and Gore. There is an anti-nuclear end of the Dems but it isn't that powerful, and where the Dems shine is being in favor of solar and wind power and general efficiency issues. Moreover, the Republicans "bring-back-coal" attitude isn't in practice any better for nuclear power either.
And how many of those guns did Obama take? And how much are your guns going to help you if the temperature goes up 5 C and the coasts are all flooding? But let's put this aside and note that there's a lot on that list that you can do that isn't political.
So, what can you do to help out? There are three major categories of how you can help, personal, political and charitable.
In terms of personal change, you can do a lot. You can eat less meat; meat consumption is a major driver of CO2 production and methane in the atmosphere https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm. You can also drive less, walk places or use public transit. If you need to buy a new car, try to buy a hybrid or an electric car. If you own a house, make sure it is well insulated; don't put the air conditioner on to any colder than you need to in the hot months, and don't heat it more than you need to during the winter. Consider buying solar panels for your house. All of these are things which not only help the environment, they save you money.
Politically, the primary thing you can do is either donate to or vote for candidates who support dealing with climate change. Much of Europe is doing the right things already regarding this (with the exception of Germany's really bad decision to turn off their nuclear plants). But both the US and Australia currently have governments who are substantially not helping matters. In the US, this means generally one should be voting for Democrats. While there are some Republicans who take climate change seriously like Christie Todd Whitman and Arnold Schwarzenegger they are a functional minority which has been pushed out of the party to a large extent.
The third thing you can do is directly donate to charitable causes which help with renewable energy or otherwise help with climate issues. Everybody Solar https://www.everybodysolar.org/ buys solar panels for non-profits like homeless shelters and science museums. The Solar Electric Light Fund https://www.self.org/ gets solar panels for parts of the developing world; this not only helps the very poorest in the world, it also helps make sure that when Africa's economy comes more online they do so in a way that doesn't immediately involve massive CO2 production. For wind power, I recommend the New England Wind Fund https://www.massenergy.org/the-wind-fund which builds wind in the North East of the US (which currently has very little wind power and can definitely use more). Finally, in terms of immediate effects of CO2 offset per a dollar spent, Cool Earth is by many measures the most efficient way to do so https://www.coolearth.org/. Remember, every little bit helps.
Hmm? No, not at all. It does mean that you can't do silly things like having an atmosphere that is just SF6 and O2. That would be very good from a keeping things warm perspective but wouldn't work from a breathing perspective. But if one had a small percentage that was SF6 (under 1 or 2%) with a careful mixture, it wouldn't be an issue. The other thing to realize is that it is very likely though the plausible short-term situations where we terraform Mars are much closer to "go outside with a breathing unit like a scuba system" rather than "wear a spacesuit." The time scale and tech level needed to make Mars to the point where humans could walk around completely unaided is much more advanced.
Some of us are in favor of both. Fixing are (very big) problems here, and also planning our long-term plans. Discussing terraforming in the abstract isn't taking up substanttal resources.
No, the problem is that in large quantities sulfur hexafluoride can settle in low down areas. So there's a danger of asphyxiation if it settles in the lungs. Worse, like nitrogen one doesn't necessarily have warning because the human body detects the presence of too much CO2 not the absence of oxygen.
I'm not sure what you mean. The lunar temperature varies depending on whether it is directly within the sun or not to about 260 F or as low as -280 F https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html. Average isn't so useful in that context, but such as they've been estimated, the average is substantially lower than Earth https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516304869. More to the point, Mars is farther from the Sun than the Earth is from the Sun, so even if the moon were the same temperature as Earth, that wouldn't matter much here.
So this study looks primarily at CO2 naturally available for terraforming. But there are a lot of things we can synthesize which are even more powerful greenhouse gases. Sulfur hexafluoride is a fun example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride with an effective warming potential a little over 20,000 times that of CO2. It is also essentially non-toxic (aside from its annoying density in large quantities). Sulfur hexalfuoride isn't the only such example, so it is still very plausible that we could terraform Mars. What this does mean though is that a simple straight high CO2 atmosphere is very likely going to be insufficient unless there are major undiscovered reserves of CO2 somewhere on Mars (which right now seems unlikely).
Slashdot Mirror
We don't need literally room temperature superconductors in order to have a lot of the benefits that people associate with room temperature superconductors. -23 C is within essentially close to the range of conventional refrigeration equipment. Once one doesn't need to rely on liquid nitrogen cooling for superconductors, the general use goes way up. The pressure is of course a pretty big issue, but if for example one had something that was a superconductor at -30 C and 2 gigapascals that would be incredibly practically useful.
And it is worth keeping in mind that even superconductors which require very cold temperatures are now being produced and used in large enough quantities that we can use them as part of the regular electric grid. The US Eastern electric grid already has a superconducting cable in Long Island https://www.energy.gov/oe/downloads/long-island-hts-power-cable and the Tres Amigas Superstation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tres_Amigas_SuperStation is going to have superconducting lines to allow efficient transfer between the three major US grids (East, West and Texas). This sort of thing will also help renewable energy a lot; since right now, there's often more wind or solar power somewhere than one directly needs but hard to get it elsewhere, and then not enough wind or solar at some other time. More efficient grids mean that excess can be much more easily transferred to where it can be used.
I'm deeply sorry that you are unable or unwilling to do anything that will other people if it takes either you spending resources or having fewer tasty foods on occasion. No, I don't have any suggestions for people who apparently fundamentally lack a basic sense of altruism.
If the US and EU did everything that would not solve the problem.
That's true, but that's not a reason that you should make no effort or that the US and EU should make zero effort. Moreover, other countries are changing what they are doing. For example, solar power is being installed in India at a rapid rate, by many metrics more rapidly than it is in the US https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/government-working-to-double-generation-target-from-solar-parks/articleshow/53268569.cms.
There is an entire world and many billions wanting a better life. I do not want to deny them a better standard of living and will not expect them to forfeit it because of climate guilt.
This isn't about "climate guilt"- in fact,many of the developing countries will suffer the most under climate projections. Heat waves in developing countries which are already in warm climates have far more of an impact on daily living and food production than they will in temperate climates in developed countries. But I agree that denying those people a better life is a bad idea: hence, reduce one's CO2 output so one doesn't harm them. And if one does want to make sure they do well, then donate to the Solar Electric Light Fund which gets solar panels in developing nations http://www.self.org/. If we do things right, then the developing grids will come online with minimal use of fossil fuels and so will get a high standard of living without any issues. But it is the height of hypocrisy to claim that because you don't want to deny them a high standard of living therefore you should eat a lot of meat and use CO2 now.
I should do something I can't afford because in 10 years I can make the money back and piety? I don't have money for these expensive things you ask for. Please, tell me how I am supposed to do these things I cannot afford.
I'm not asking you to do anything involving "piety" and I'm not telling you to do anything you cannot afford. If you cannot afford to buy solar panels then don't do it. But there's a serious problem in your line of logic when you say you won't buy solar panels or do anything else because you cannot afford it, but when pointed out that meat consumption is expensive and also damaging refuse to even consider reducing meat consumption. If one cannot afford to take those active steps, then that's all the more reason you should take the steps which actually would save you money in the short term; that's especially the case because the lower your income bracket the higher proportion of your income ends up going to food.
Again, you don't know what I have done or how I have lived my life but expect more money and more changes to my life because Europeans think their shit doesn't stink and per capita. No.
I don't know what you've done with your life. I do know that by your own description you are utterly unwilling to do any of the most basic steps to help out, even ones which will save you money, right now, literally today with no investment on your part. And yes, the European attitudes can be pretty annoying; although many European countries have done a lot of good, many have not. Moreover, some have been actively counterproductive, like Germany turning off its nuclear power as a supposed "green" move, but that doesn't change the basic parameters. And yes, per a capita matters because it reflects systemic and large-scale indications of what one can do. As for not knowing what you personally have done, you could of course state explicitly what you've done, but you haven't in this thread, and my tentative guess is that you haven't because you've done jack. I for example don't own a car (which also saves money) and rarely eat meat. I'm skipping referencing your next
I don't care about Europe and what they are doing.
That's a strange claim to make given that you just said in your previous comment that "If everyone in the US became Luddites and lived to pre-industrial standards, it still woudln't matter because other countries will not be as determined." My point about Europe was in response to you claiming that you apparently care precisely about what other countries are doing.
I care about my standard of living and what I can do. Per capita doesn't mean shit to my life and I don't want my standard of living lowered. I probably have a lower average carbon consumption so why should I concern myself about per capita when, again, it doesn't matter what the US does if other countries don't care.
You appear to engaging in some degree of inconsistency, where you in one sentence say that you don't care about what other countries are doing and then argue that it doesn't matter what the US is doing if other countries aren't doing anything, when my entire point was that other countries are doing all sorts of things. And yes, per a capita does matter: it is a sign that very small changes in lifestyle can have a large impact. I don't know why you think you have a lower average carbon consumption (I presume you mean output not consumption there)- compared to whom? Certainly not the Europeans or most other people on this planet.
I enjoy eating meat and I will eat it when I want. I don't have money for a new car or solar panels. Do you have any suggestion that doesn't cost money or seem like Lent?
So in other words, you don't want to do something which will save money for you, even if you don't have much money right now, and you are willing to keep doing things which you know cause damage to everyone in the long-term, including yourself, so you can occasionally have tasty food. Do you not see a problem with that? In any event, I'm not even trying to suggest you don't eat meat, but eating less meat is a major way one can help out.
You don't know what I have done or how I live my life but expect more money and more action. Fuck off. Because right now, it seems like you are preaching a religion. "Give up the loins of your decadence and forfeit the pleasures of life before God. Fasten your belts and shiver in winter for warmth and eat not the swine or drink the milk of Bos taurus. Carbon Tax will save thy children in the last days before the coming apocalypse. You will be blessed tenfold the tithing you pay toward Gods son the Green Savior. We are all carbon using sinners and must suffer to redeem our souls. In the name of God, his Green Son, and the Holy Carbon Tax. Amen."
It is true that I don't personally know what you've done with your life. However, it is pretty clear from this conversation that you are unwilling to do any of the major steps that would actually be helpful. I'm not sure also why you have so much anger over this that you feel a need to tell someone who is commenting on what one can practically do to "fuck off." You appear to be also making some very bad pattern matching here. Yes, many religions engaged in self-denial and similar activity. That doesn't mean that reducing one's use of a specific resource can't make sense, and it doesn't mean that deliberately reducing consumption of some types of goods must somehow be a religion. The actual science and facts are that this can help. Simply ignoring the massive CO2 output created by meat consumption and regular cars and the like and labeling it a "religion" isn't a substantial or productive argument.
Note, I don't deny AGW or think the science is wrong or w/e. I don't like the Fear mongering, harping hippy hypocrites, and the solutions those people bring.
I don't know who the harping hippy hypocrites are in this context (if you mean the sort of people who claim to care about AGW but then try to block nuclear power plants, yeah, such
First of all, the US is one of the countries which is doing the least to help out with climate change. Note in contrast for example, that Sweden is reaching its 2030 goals for renewable energy by the end of the this year https://www.thelocal.se/20180716/sweden-to-reach-2030-renewable-energy-goal-in-2018. Moreover, the US per a capita CO2 production is over twice that of the EU and about three times the world average https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions. We're doing less than other countries, and have more that we can easily do. But many of the things that one can do, like eating less meat, getting a hybrid or electric car, getting home solar panels, will not just be good for the environment, but will save you money.
This is an extremely confused response. This essentially says that the more scientists are concerned about a problem the less you are concerned. If you keep seeing a lot of different articles and ways something might be a problem, and one isn't personally a subject matter expert, deciding to then dismiss all of it is the opposite of good logic. That said, it is true that by nature of media coverage the less concerning predictions about climate change get less attention in the general media, so you might not see them as much, but that doesn't change the fact that the broad consensus is pretty severe. Studies like this are trying to figure out just how severe that is, and even the mild predictions are pretty serious. Honestly, your response comes across a little as someone who has decided that you aren't going to bother making any even small changes in your lifestyle and then found a justification for it.
This doesn't seem to take into account that many grids are rapidly improving in terms of how much solar and wind they have in the grids. If an electric car hits breakeven compared to a highly efficient diesel car given 5 years given current rates for example, then in practice we should expect that to happen even earlier. Moreover, electric cars have very long potential lifespans since they contain few moving parts (there's correspondingly less maintenance on an electric car than on an ICE car). Of course, the most efficient thing to do is still to not have a car, and use public transport; unfortunately for many people that isn't a practical option.
Curiously, a lot of people pushing for climate issues are also in favor of more nuclear power. The main reasons that more of a push is being made currently for solar and wind is that wind and solar are in mnay contexts cheaper than nuclear power (as long as they aren't the entire grid) and that as a practical matter it takes years or decades to build a nuclear plant (for largely political reasons) so if we want to deal with things now, wind and solar make more sense.
There's no mysterious group trying to control everything. I've drastically reduced my meat consumption over the last few years precisely for this reason (and maybe eat meat about once a month). If you talk to climate scientists, a lot of them have become complete vegetarians, and they generally did so after becoming interested in climate issues. They aren't pushing the climate issue as part of some nefarious vegetarian or vegan plot.
It could have other uses as well, such as metallurgical analysis of damaged parts (such as from an airplane crash), and in the geological sciences as well.
Another related application is simply quality control. Non-destructive testing of parts is really tough. Having another way to examine them without damaging may be very useful.
You appear to be confusing two separate issues; whether gun control reduced crime rates by a lot with whether or not it was at all similar to alcohol prohibition. Alcohol prohibition wasn't just ineffective, but it also lead to a massive crime waves and literally thousands of additional deaths from tainted alcohol.
Bad comparison. Countries have tried restricting both firearms and alcohol. We know that banning alcohol goes badly in general (e.g. US prohibition, Islamic countries today). In contrast, over the last 50 years, many countries have substantially increased restrictions on firearms (the UK, Canada, and Australia), and we haven't seen the same problems from alcohol prohibition. Addictive substances built into culture are very different than weapons. There are some decent potential arguments for few restrictions on firearms(e.g. right of self-defense), but a comparison to alcohol empirically doesn't work.
Here's the thing though. The democrats ginned up roughly the same amount of fear and apprehension over Romney, W, Dole, Bush 41, and Reagan before him.
This wasn't at al l the same. You had people like George Will, and other moderate Republicans saying that Trump wasn't a normal Republican who they could support. I've spent every election since 1996 telling people on both ends of the political spectrum that it wouldn't be so bad if the candidate from the major opposing party won. There's one exception; this last election, because Trump really did represent a serious threat to the stability and functionality of American democracy and power. That some people cried wolf is not an excuse to ignore when the myriad people who hadn't previously been wolf criers start saying their's a wolf.
There's no substantial danger that Dems are going to deliberately stop nuclear power the way Germany did. But more to the point, the idea that nuclear power is somehow better than solar and wind is not true. While nuclear power for baseline power is really useful, the cost solar and wind is generally lower. More to the point, it takes a very long time to set up new nuclear plants. In contrast, the amount of time it takes to make a similar amount of solar or wind power is much lower. In the long run we'll likely transition to a nuclear heavy grid, but it isn't useful to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Portland cement and related processes are certainly a major source of CO2, but they aren't "the major source." See https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/10/195/2018/essd-10-195-2018.pdf and https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cement-industry/. About 5% of total CO2 production is due to cement and related materials.
But let's put this aside and note that there's a lot on that list that you can do that isn't political.
Which just so happens to benefit wealthy elite on the coasts and conveniently infers blame on poorer people living more inland. How convenient for you.
I live in Iowa, so I'm not completely sure how you think things which benefit the "wealthy elite on the coasts" is convenient for me. Moreover, pretty much nothing on my list was coastal specific except for the New England Wind Fund. Everybody Solar for example is currently funding programs in the Dakotas and Idaho. The Solar Electric Light Fund doesn't put things in the US at all. And the only reason I mentioned the New England Wind Fund is because it is genuinely the best wind charity out there.
I know taking personal responsibility for yourself and sacrificing your own feel-good luxuries is opposite of modern liberalism these days, but please try.
This is strange for you to assert given that the first of the three categories I listed was explicitly matters of personal responsibility, and we follow the vast majority of them. My wife and I don't own a car at all, and the only times we eat meat are when we're visiting relatives who are highly carnivorous. That said, the scale of things matters: for example, you talk about not using electronics, but the CO2 levels of using most modern devices are pretty low. Similarly, eating at restaurants doesn't involve substantially more CO2 production than anything else (we don't go to restaurants often, but it has little to do with CO2). Personal responsibility is for such issues is much more common among people concern about climate change than you seem to realize.
No. There are some Democrats who aren't good about nuclear power certainly but most of the major Democrats are in favor of nuclear power. Hillary Clinton was explicitly in favor, as was Obama, Kerry and Gore. There is an anti-nuclear end of the Dems but it isn't that powerful, and where the Dems shine is being in favor of solar and wind power and general efficiency issues. Moreover, the Republicans "bring-back-coal" attitude isn't in practice any better for nuclear power either.
And how many of those guns did Obama take? And how much are your guns going to help you if the temperature goes up 5 C and the coasts are all flooding? But let's put this aside and note that there's a lot on that list that you can do that isn't political.
In terms of personal change, you can do a lot. You can eat less meat; meat consumption is a major driver of CO2 production and methane in the atmosphere https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm. You can also drive less, walk places or use public transit. If you need to buy a new car, try to buy a hybrid or an electric car. If you own a house, make sure it is well insulated; don't put the air conditioner on to any colder than you need to in the hot months, and don't heat it more than you need to during the winter. Consider buying solar panels for your house. All of these are things which not only help the environment, they save you money.
Politically, the primary thing you can do is either donate to or vote for candidates who support dealing with climate change. Much of Europe is doing the right things already regarding this (with the exception of Germany's really bad decision to turn off their nuclear plants). But both the US and Australia currently have governments who are substantially not helping matters. In the US, this means generally one should be voting for Democrats. While there are some Republicans who take climate change seriously like Christie Todd Whitman and Arnold Schwarzenegger they are a functional minority which has been pushed out of the party to a large extent.
The third thing you can do is directly donate to charitable causes which help with renewable energy or otherwise help with climate issues. Everybody Solar https://www.everybodysolar.org/ buys solar panels for non-profits like homeless shelters and science museums. The Solar Electric Light Fund https://www.self.org/ gets solar panels for parts of the developing world; this not only helps the very poorest in the world, it also helps make sure that when Africa's economy comes more online they do so in a way that doesn't immediately involve massive CO2 production. For wind power, I recommend the New England Wind Fund https://www.massenergy.org/the-wind-fund which builds wind in the North East of the US (which currently has very little wind power and can definitely use more). Finally, in terms of immediate effects of CO2 offset per a dollar spent, Cool Earth is by many measures the most efficient way to do so https://www.coolearth.org/. Remember, every little bit helps.
Let's leave aside the difference between having a human physically show up and having bots click on a website link. Let's leave aside also that the types of ID required might be aimed at certain demographics, like in Texas where a gun license is an acceptable ID to vote but a student ID from a state school is not an ok ID https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/jun/26/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-you-can-vote-texas-concealed-/. Let's put aside also that North Carolina Republicans deliberately optimized their voting ID system to minimize African-American turnout https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/. Putting all of that aside why are so many people focused on in-person voter fraud when the evidence and consensus of actual experts is that absentee ballot fraud is an actual and serious problem especially in local elections?
Hmm? No, not at all. It does mean that you can't do silly things like having an atmosphere that is just SF6 and O2. That would be very good from a keeping things warm perspective but wouldn't work from a breathing perspective. But if one had a small percentage that was SF6 (under 1 or 2%) with a careful mixture, it wouldn't be an issue. The other thing to realize is that it is very likely though the plausible short-term situations where we terraform Mars are much closer to "go outside with a breathing unit like a scuba system" rather than "wear a spacesuit." The time scale and tech level needed to make Mars to the point where humans could walk around completely unaided is much more advanced.
Some of us are in favor of both. Fixing are (very big) problems here, and also planning our long-term plans. Discussing terraforming in the abstract isn't taking up substanttal resources.
No, the problem is that in large quantities sulfur hexafluoride can settle in low down areas. So there's a danger of asphyxiation if it settles in the lungs. Worse, like nitrogen one doesn't necessarily have warning because the human body detects the presence of too much CO2 not the absence of oxygen.
I'm not sure what you mean. The lunar temperature varies depending on whether it is directly within the sun or not to about 260 F or as low as -280 F https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html. Average isn't so useful in that context, but such as they've been estimated, the average is substantially lower than Earth https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516304869. More to the point, Mars is farther from the Sun than the Earth is from the Sun, so even if the moon were the same temperature as Earth, that wouldn't matter much here.
So this study looks primarily at CO2 naturally available for terraforming. But there are a lot of things we can synthesize which are even more powerful greenhouse gases. Sulfur hexafluoride is a fun example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride with an effective warming potential a little over 20,000 times that of CO2. It is also essentially non-toxic (aside from its annoying density in large quantities). Sulfur hexalfuoride isn't the only such example, so it is still very plausible that we could terraform Mars. What this does mean though is that a simple straight high CO2 atmosphere is very likely going to be insufficient unless there are major undiscovered reserves of CO2 somewhere on Mars (which right now seems unlikely).