It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/the-making-of-bidens-superfast-push-for-clean-electricityJoe Biden put a 100% clean grid at the core of his climate agenda. Even more remarkable was his proposed timeline: 15 years.
Can anyone build a clean grid that fast? And for that matter, where did an idea this big come from in the first place?
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.
R - no global warning, I get my flowers a bit early - fine, summers are hot - who care - I have central AC, keeps me cool always.
I get my subsidized flood insurance from FEMA - in hole 20Billion US$ - no global warning. I don't know why cultists are raiding this site. They already have Parler.
Also, it seems oddly unpatriotic and un-American of you actually to say “ We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.” America is the country that put a man on the moon. We used to lead in technology, not follow what other countries are doing.” Why is it that when it comes to climate change you cry, “Waaah, we can’t.” We invest and make the tech better. Where’s your “can-do American attitude” when it comes to this? In fact, it will be both a PR and economic triumph if we lead in this area and a disaster if we don’t.
And I find it reductive and one-sided to say that investing in improving our carbon footprint doesn’t create any jobs but only destroys them. There have already been a number of studies that green jobs can more than replace fossil fuel ones.
But as I’ve already said, this is not a relative game and actually beside the point in some respects. It shouldn’t matter what the Chinese are doing with regard to what America is doing because the entire planet is suffering from what everyone is doing. And everyone needs to do something. And at least Biden has a plan to do something as opposed to the big fat nothing, lying and denial the GOP has offered.
Biting “my tongue,” so-to-speak, and not trying to be inflammatory, but this is a discussion board, with viewpoints from all sides. Disagreeing posts/ideas shouldn’t be dismissed and relegated as small-minded zealots of the opposite party. That is the purpose of the “Off Topic” board
Stay Safe, Derf
Confused. So what? Just shrug? Do you have a point other than a kvetch about what you think is delusion? This is not even at the level the perfect defeating the good. What do you propose? What would you advise? I cannot tell if you actually keep up, what with your credentials.
have you written about proper carbon costing and capture?
1. Lead in the fight against climate change while others follow us- The moonshot goal, what America was once famous for. Would be great for America's image.
2. Follow other countries that are actively fighting climate change like Germany and other Western European ones. OK, acceptable, better than nothing.
3. Do nothing and deny anthropogenic climate change is real and that we have any way to influence it and waste time complaining "whatabout" China, etc.. This is the traditional GOP response. It's bad, very bad.
4. Actually go backwards, roll back environmental regulations already in place, drill baby bill and spend needless hours trying to "make libtards cry" while the planet dies. This is where we are with the current president who has rolled back environmental regs and did everything possible to sabotage environmental movements. It is absolutely dreadful.
You seem to be saying Biden's plan isn't feasible in 15 years. So what? Something in the right direction is better than where we are now and moaning about other countries' behavior. And if we support addressing climate change via solar, I'm sure scientists will consider other avenues along the way. Regulations must change as well, not just tech innovation. It needs to be more expensive to produce carbon emissions and consume plastic. There are many avenues for attacking the problem. But moaning about what other countries are doing or not doing as an excuse to do nothing is no longer acceptable.
I might as well throw out ANOTHER solution you won't like, also doable if we had the will... Start controlling and reducing overpopulation of the planet; with its resultant global warming, pollution, reduction of rain forests, reduction of arable land, and on and on. THAT would ALSO be a solution to the problem.
I've no particular quarrel with your #1, but it doesn't get us to Biden's goal. On #2, I'll just note that France, for example, is virtually all fission-generated power with its OWN issues, but a 'solution' nonetheless, and Europe generally is HEAVILY dependent on imported oil - much of it from Russia. #3 and #4 are predominately swipes at Republicans in general, so unproductive. So long as we remain divided on the basis of extremist views on BOTH sides, we're in trouble as a nation. Moderates in control would a better alternative.
I'll just briefly remind you that the op specifically mentioned BIDEN'S grid plan and asked for our reaction to it. I've remained on topic, slandered no one, took no political stance, and provided simple facts... How about you?
So you must be thrilled with Biden.
>> of course, all that global warming and CO2 didn't prevent the following ice age from covering much of the Earth in a blanket of ice miles thick.
Yeah, I guess we're done. I thought you had something real to offer; my bad.
Btw, Lewis, putting a word or two in caps isn't the same thing as writing in all caps. I would think that was self-evident, but maybe not to you? I do it to simulate the kind of emphasis I would put into my spoken words if I were speaking to you, and if that's the only thing you find worth mentioning, then I'm wasting my time; noted.
David, you seem to be unhappy with me pointing out the inevitability of another ice age when our orbit around the sun becomes more eccentric at some point in the future (as it did in the past). This bars the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect, of course, but we aren't there yet. I'm sorry you feel that is not worth mentioning. Too bad, as it is scientific fact and unavoidable unless we can somehow change our orbit. As to Biden, we'll see what he does. I would say that so far I'm fine with him.
I find it a bit odd that people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum are only too eager to look to science so long as it agrees with their preconceived notions, but prefer not to credit it when it happens to work against them.
As if this has anything to do with anything. Jesus. I am guessing you do not have grandchildren. Mine, 3-6-9, are going to live a long time barring mishap, but not 1-2k years. Yours?
You did not share your thoughts about carbon taxation and econ disincentives affecting aggregate behaviors.
>> only too eager to look to science so long as it agrees with their preconceived notions, but prefer not to credit it when it happens to work against them.
What science is it that works "against" warming?
You sure do have the gift of glib. I for some reason keep thinking you might conceivably have something real to offer here. Prove me right, I dare you.
Everything has to have a context though; in the past it has been both much warmer AND much colder and man had little to do with either. That said, while humans may have contributed to the current state of things, the only real solution, imo, is having less of us around at any given time. Unimpeded growth in ANY population NEVER has a good outcome for that population!
This COVID-19 thing is simply the LATEST example: Our increasing mobility makes a world-wide reaction more likely, and the consequences of our population density, coupled with the natural selection effect that antibiotics have had, makes pandemics MORE likely to be novel and without effective treatments/cures. As bad as COVID-19 has been, its infection rate has been in the single percentage digits, and of THOSE, the fatalities have also been in the single percentage digits. Can you even imagine what a 50% infection rate coupled with a 50% fatality rate would look like? Many infectious diseases have a 90% fatality rate. In the past, they were localized geographically. IMO, THIS is the greatest danger we actually face, and it is MUCH more likely to have a catastrophic outcome. We've been VERY lucky (so far); if you can call 1.6 million dead (and counting) lucky...
There is only one good doable solution NUCLEAR.
Oh wait, it seems like part of Biden’s failure of a clean energy plan includes nuclear: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/08/17/what-will-a-biden-harris-administration-do-for-nuclear-energy/amp/
I guess just send your geothermal idea with your resume because no one on Biden’s team is smart enough to think of that.