- Posts: 3444
- Thank you received: 11
Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?
- Something the Dog Said
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
20 Nov 2012 18:47 #21
by Something the Dog Said
The harm to the earth is actually increasing at a much greater rate than projected just a few years ago. The World Bank this week released a scientific study this outlining much of the damage that will be incurred by developing countries. A few of the findings released included:
Arctic sea ice reached a record minimum in September, and extreme heat waves and drought in the last decade have hit places like the United States and Russia more often than would be expected from historical records, Such extreme weather is likely to become the "new normal" if the temperature rises by 4 degrees, according to the World Bank report. This is likely to happen if not all countries comply with pledges they have made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Even assuming full compliance, the world will warm by more than 3 degrees by 2100.
In this hotter climate, the level of the sea would rise by up to 3 feet, flooding cities in places like Vietnam and Bangladesh. Water scarcity and falling crop yields would exacerbate hunger and poverty.
Extreme heat waves would devastate broad swaths of the earth's land, from the Middle East to the United States, the report says. The warmest July in the Mediterranean could be 9 degrees hotter than it is today -- akin to temperatures seen in the Libyan desert.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Replied by Something the Dog Said on topic Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?
So you prefer to destroy the environment, cause untold havoc to millions for generations to come, just so your present creature comforts will not be inconvenienced.PrintSmith wrote:
The cold hard truth of the matter is that if we were "paying what we should be" for energy, the percentage of people living below the poverty line would be significantly higher than it currently is, which is already on of the highest on record. The cold hard truth of the matter is that the higher standard of living that we are accustomed to is reliant on an inexpensive and abundant form of energy. Take away the inexpensive and abundant energy and you take with it the elevated standard of living in most of the civilized world. It is fossil fuels, a dense and abundant form of energy, which fueled the rise in our standard of living. Take away inexpensive electricity, take away inexpensive fuel for our vehicles and we will quickly find ourselves living in the 1930's again - complete with iceboxes to replace refrigerators and oil lamps to replace electric ones.Science Chic wrote:
As am I, which is why I wrote in this thread that we are f*****. The amount of effort/change that needs to be made, and the amount of fossil fuels that need to be left in the ground compared to our current levels of use, are so far apart that it would take a miracle to pull it off. I did see a piece that some Republican rep said that implementing a carbon tax wouldn't necessarily raise individuals' tax rates if it was done in conjunction with other tax cuts, but I haven't looked into that. Frankly, we aren't paying what we should be for energy and that's a harsh truth that everyone needs to come to accept, like it or not. It will be a lot less painful if we can do it before the SHTF - ie, switch to renewables before we've passed the point of no return with regards to CO2 ppm and climate change that will be locked in due to that.FredHayek wrote: I saw the colder than average piece, but still am very skeptical that the world would be willing to make major changes to their lifestyles to stop the change. And Americans aren't exactly clamoring to raise gas taxes to the levels of Europe either.
Do any of you have an appreciation of the amount of energy it takes to make toast for you in the morning in that toaster? How about your microwave oven, do you know how much energy that sucker sucks down? Clothes irons? How about your electric clothes dryer? Not to mention our well pumps up here or the electric fireplaces that seem to be all the rage to keep the family room toasty warm while the kiddies do their homework, watch the television or play their video game consoles. Double the cost of that electricity, the "necessary" skyrocketing of the costs our president talked about his policies having on energy costs a little over 4 years ago, and you will plunge more people into poverty in this nation than the last recession did. Don't fool yourselves; our comfort, our very way of life as we know it, depends on inexpensive and abundant energy. If we ever reach the point where we are "paying what we should" for energy there is not a single chance that we can support 330 million people here and keep having each generation live longer than the previous one or that the planet can sustain 7+ Billion people who are all living longer than their predecessors did.
There is a reason that prior to the industrial revolution the average lifespan was significantly less than it is today. There is a reason that mortality rates have drastically decreased among the aged and the young since we started using fossil fuels and our standard of living went up along with our use of those fuels. Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.
The harm to the earth is actually increasing at a much greater rate than projected just a few years ago. The World Bank this week released a scientific study this outlining much of the damage that will be incurred by developing countries. A few of the findings released included:
Arctic sea ice reached a record minimum in September, and extreme heat waves and drought in the last decade have hit places like the United States and Russia more often than would be expected from historical records, Such extreme weather is likely to become the "new normal" if the temperature rises by 4 degrees, according to the World Bank report. This is likely to happen if not all countries comply with pledges they have made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Even assuming full compliance, the world will warm by more than 3 degrees by 2100.
In this hotter climate, the level of the sea would rise by up to 3 feet, flooding cities in places like Vietnam and Bangladesh. Water scarcity and falling crop yields would exacerbate hunger and poverty.
Extreme heat waves would devastate broad swaths of the earth's land, from the Middle East to the United States, the report says. The warmest July in the Mediterranean could be 9 degrees hotter than it is today -- akin to temperatures seen in the Libyan desert.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Raees
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 3724
- Thank you received: 0
20 Nov 2012 18:50 #22
by Raees
Replied by Raees on topic Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?
This is absolutely mind blowing. All people under the age of 27 have NEVER lived through a month that was colder than average for the entire planet. Yes, that is correct. The last time the entire planet experienced a month that was colder than normal was FEBRUARY 1985!!! There have now been 332 CONSECUTIVE months of ABOVE AVERAGE global temperatures.
From the NOAA website.
The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63°C (58.23°F). This is 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature. The last below-average month was February 1985. The last October with a below-average temperature was 1976. The Northern Hemisphere ranked as the seventh warmest October on record, while the Southern Hemisphere ranked as second warmest, behind 1997.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/10
I just though I'd throw this in here. It's fascinating.
From the NOAA website.
The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63°C (58.23°F). This is 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature. The last below-average month was February 1985. The last October with a below-average temperature was 1976. The Northern Hemisphere ranked as the seventh warmest October on record, while the Southern Hemisphere ranked as second warmest, behind 1997.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/10
I just though I'd throw this in here. It's fascinating.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- LOL
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 6393
- Thank you received: 18
20 Nov 2012 18:53 #23
by LOL
And actually I wasn't talking to you LJ, nor will I be in the future, as long as you have nothing intelligent or thoughtful to add to any discussion. Cheers! Have a life.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Replied by LOL on topic Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?
LadyJazzer wrote: Nuclear ... (or in GOTP parlance: Nu-CU-lar) ... won't begin to touch the amount of CO2 and greenhouse gasses being pumped into the atmosphere. Neither will building the boondoggle Keystone pipeline... Or drilling more in ANWAR or the Gulf, and creating eco-disasters...(and dead workers) ...
And actually I wasn't talking to you LJ, nor will I be in the future, as long as you have nothing intelligent or thoughtful to add to any discussion. Cheers! Have a life.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- LadyJazzer
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 14880
- Thank you received: 27
20 Nov 2012 18:54 #24
by LadyJazzer
Replied by LadyJazzer on topic Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?
You can't possibly imagine how much I don't give a sh*t whether you were talking to me or not... I don't need your friggin' permission to post.
But thanks for playing.
But thanks for playing.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- FredHayek
-
Topic Author
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 30794
- Thank you received: 179
20 Nov 2012 19:56 #25
by FredHayek
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Replied by FredHayek on topic Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?
Actually nuclear energy was the best option for alternative energy but now it is an expensive legal nightmare to get new plants built. Some of the most interesting alternative energies out there are the low tech replacements for high polluting 18th century tech. For example a solar cooler to replace wood cook fires.LadyJazzer wrote: Nuclear ... (or in GOTP parlance: Nu-CU-lar) ... won't begin to touch the amount of CO2 and greenhouse gasses being pumped into the atmosphere. Neither will building the boondoggle Keystone pipeline... Or drilling more in ANWAR or the Gulf, and creating eco-disasters...(and dead workers) ...
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- archer
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 9964
- Thank you received: 8
20 Nov 2012 21:12 #26
by archer
:thumbsup:
Replied by archer on topic Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?
This will be a pretty quiet board if we stop talking to every poster we think has nothing intelligent or thoughtful to add to any discussion. The right will ignore the left, and the let will ignore the right. Hmmmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea.LOL wrote:
LadyJazzer wrote: Nuclear ... (or in GOTP parlance: Nu-CU-lar) ... won't begin to touch the amount of CO2 and greenhouse gasses being pumped into the atmosphere. Neither will building the boondoggle Keystone pipeline... Or drilling more in ANWAR or the Gulf, and creating eco-disasters...(and dead workers) ...
And actually I wasn't talking to you LJ, nor will I be in the future, as long as you have nothing intelligent or thoughtful to add to any discussion. Cheers! Have a life.
:thumbsup:
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- ScienceChic
-
- Mountain Champion
-
Less
More
- Posts: 15746
- Thank you received: 320
20 Nov 2012 23:24 #27
by ScienceChic
The question I have is: do you understand what I mean by we will require a fundamental shift in our lifestyle? Our way of life as we know it may require inexpensive energy now, but that's going to change. Most people don't realize how huge it will be, but it's coming. And it doesn't have to change for all that much worse if we plan it right and start now. Renewables are almost competitive right now and are only going to come down as fossil fuels rise. The days of cheap fossil fuels are coming to an end, like it or not and we have a choice to either proactively prepare, or reactively suffer. Because if we don't start doing something about it, it's the poor that are going to bear the majority of the burden - they already do in higher food costs, higher health burden, requiring crappy government subsidized insurance, etc.
Speaking of the 30s, did you see that we're already topping Dust Bowl temps and getting dryer by the year? It wouldn't be such a bad thing to cut back on the number of electronic devices that we think we need every day. I mean, do we really need a sports bar on every corner with 18 TVs showing golf and baseball?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Replied by ScienceChic on topic Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?
Yes, I do know my exact energy usage for my whole house each month and am always taking steps to reduce, reuse, and recycle. I've run my air conditioner and furnace as little as possible and adjusted to being a little uncomfortable. I've increased the energy efficiency of my home by replacing older appliances, sealing up cracks, and increasing insulation. I am saving up to get solar panels so that all of my energy needs are covered renewably and in the meantime donate to a carbon fund for offsets. I use my clothesline in the summer and nice days in the winter rather than my electric dryer because it saves both money and energy. I combine as many vehicle trips as possible each time I go out and I've got a hybrid, saving for an all-electric. If I can find the time, I even walk to the grocery store sometimes saving the ultimate amount of gas. I'm eagerly anticipating the opening of the RTD Fas-tracks on the west side - there's a station within biking distance that will take me downtown and eventually out to the airport and I will use it.PrintSmith wrote:
The cold hard truth of the matter is that if we were "paying what we should be" for energy, the percentage of people living below the poverty line would be significantly higher than it currently is, which is already on of the highest on record. The cold hard truth of the matter is that the higher standard of living that we are accustomed to is reliant on an inexpensive and abundant form of energy. Take away the inexpensive and abundant energy and you take with it the elevated standard of living in most of the civilized world. It is fossil fuels, a dense and abundant form of energy, which fueled the rise in our standard of living. Take away inexpensive electricity, take away inexpensive fuel for our vehicles and we will quickly find ourselves living in the 1930's again - complete with iceboxes to replace refrigerators and oil lamps to replace electric ones.Science Chic wrote:
As am I, which is why I wrote in this thread that we are f*****. The amount of effort/change that needs to be made, and the amount of fossil fuels that need to be left in the ground compared to our current levels of use, are so far apart that it would take a miracle to pull it off. I did see a piece that some Republican rep said that implementing a carbon tax wouldn't necessarily raise individuals' tax rates if it was done in conjunction with other tax cuts, but I haven't looked into that. Frankly, we aren't paying what we should be for energy and that's a harsh truth that everyone needs to come to accept, like it or not. It will be a lot less painful if we can do it before the SHTF - ie, switch to renewables before we've passed the point of no return with regards to CO2 ppm and climate change that will be locked in due to that.FredHayek wrote: I saw the colder than average piece, but still am very skeptical that the world would be willing to make major changes to their lifestyles to stop the change. And Americans aren't exactly clamoring to raise gas taxes to the levels of Europe either.
Do any of you have an appreciation of the amount of energy it takes to make toast for you in the morning in that toaster? How about your microwave oven, do you know how much energy that sucker sucks down? Clothes irons? How about your electric clothes dryer? Not to mention our well pumps up here or the electric fireplaces that seem to be all the rage to keep the family room toasty warm while the kiddies do their homework, watch the television or play their video game consoles. Double the cost of that electricity, the "necessary" skyrocketing of the costs our president talked about his policies having on energy costs a little over 4 years ago, and you will plunge more people into poverty in this nation than the last recession did. Don't fool yourselves; our comfort, our very way of life as we know it, depends on inexpensive and abundant energy. If we ever reach the point where we are "paying what we should" for energy there is not a single chance that we can support 330 million people here and keep having each generation live longer than the previous one or that the planet can sustain 7+ Billion people who are all living longer than their predecessors did.
There is a reason that prior to the industrial revolution the average lifespan was significantly less than it is today. There is a reason that mortality rates have drastically decreased among the aged and the young since we started using fossil fuels and our standard of living went up along with our use of those fuels. Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.
The question I have is: do you understand what I mean by we will require a fundamental shift in our lifestyle? Our way of life as we know it may require inexpensive energy now, but that's going to change. Most people don't realize how huge it will be, but it's coming. And it doesn't have to change for all that much worse if we plan it right and start now. Renewables are almost competitive right now and are only going to come down as fossil fuels rise. The days of cheap fossil fuels are coming to an end, like it or not and we have a choice to either proactively prepare, or reactively suffer. Because if we don't start doing something about it, it's the poor that are going to bear the majority of the burden - they already do in higher food costs, higher health burden, requiring crappy government subsidized insurance, etc.
Speaking of the 30s, did you see that we're already topping Dust Bowl temps and getting dryer by the year? It wouldn't be such a bad thing to cut back on the number of electronic devices that we think we need every day. I mean, do we really need a sports bar on every corner with 18 TVs showing golf and baseball?
Yes, nuclear needs to be in the mix too. Last I'd read there were new plants in the pipeline, but I don't know what their status is.LOL wrote:
Science Chic wrote: As am I, which is why I wrote in this thread that we are f*****. The amount of effort/change that needs to be made, and the amount of fossil fuels that need to be left in the ground compared to our current levels of use, are so far apart that it would take a miracle to pull it off.
Actually it would probably take a fast track monumental effort to convert fossil fuels to nuclear, which has been stalled since the 70s.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Blazer Bob
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 10451
- Thank you received: 70
20 Nov 2012 23:53 #28
by Blazer Bob
Replied by Blazer Bob on topic Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?
You can hang cloths outside in freezing not nice days and they will still dry. I dried drop cloths all winter long in Mi.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- RenegadeCJ
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 3724
- Thank you received: 130
21 Nov 2012 06:00 #29
by RenegadeCJ
Do you have any idea of the costs right now to our economy to implement these "carbon taxes" on fossil fuels? Most construction companies and trucking companies are barely squeaking by. Most would go out of business. At this time, the technology isn't there to have a "clean" OTR truck or heavy equipment. The amount of fuel used in these businesses would cause a massive ripple effect. Costs for everyday foods would skyrocket. Many companies would go out of business, OR construction would cease for all those companies hanging on by a thread now.
I support clean energy, but not clean energy which is forced on our economy before technology has found a better way. Just spending more $$ for the same things won't help, especially now. I do support tax incentives or govt grants to research these things, but not to destroy our economy in the process.
I don't think people really understand the impact these carbon taxes will have on us, especially those of us struggling. The govt doesn't have any more $$ to subsidize products for the people, nor should they.
Lets get the economy rolling again...then dump $$ into research to find products that are actually cost efficient.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Replied by RenegadeCJ on topic Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?
Science Chic wrote: The question I have is: do you understand what I mean by we will require a fundamental shift in our lifestyle? Our way of life as we know it may require inexpensive energy now, but that's going to change. Most people don't realize how huge it will be, but it's coming. And it doesn't have to change for all that much worse if we plan it right and start now. Renewables are almost competitive right now and are only going to come down as fossil fuels rise. The days of cheap fossil fuels are coming to an end, like it or not and we have a choice to either proactively prepare, or reactively suffer. Because if we don't start doing something about it, it's the poor that are going to bear the majority of the burden - they already do in higher food costs, higher health burden, requiring crappy government subsidized insurance, etc.
Speaking of the 30s, did you see that we're already topping Dust Bowl temps and getting dryer by the year? It wouldn't be such a bad thing to cut back on the number of electronic devices that we think we need every day. I mean, do we really need a sports bar on every corner with 18 TVs showing golf and baseball?
Do you have any idea of the costs right now to our economy to implement these "carbon taxes" on fossil fuels? Most construction companies and trucking companies are barely squeaking by. Most would go out of business. At this time, the technology isn't there to have a "clean" OTR truck or heavy equipment. The amount of fuel used in these businesses would cause a massive ripple effect. Costs for everyday foods would skyrocket. Many companies would go out of business, OR construction would cease for all those companies hanging on by a thread now.
I support clean energy, but not clean energy which is forced on our economy before technology has found a better way. Just spending more $$ for the same things won't help, especially now. I do support tax incentives or govt grants to research these things, but not to destroy our economy in the process.
I don't think people really understand the impact these carbon taxes will have on us, especially those of us struggling. The govt doesn't have any more $$ to subsidize products for the people, nor should they.
Lets get the economy rolling again...then dump $$ into research to find products that are actually cost efficient.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- FredHayek
-
Topic Author
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 30794
- Thank you received: 179
21 Nov 2012 07:01 #30
by FredHayek
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Replied by FredHayek on topic Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?
I like tax credits for conservation. And in the summer, the utility company essentially fines large homes, so I would also support premium pricing in the winter if you go over a certain usage level. Hopefully this would encourage smaller, more fuel efficient homes.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.153 seconds
sponsors
