Jump to content
You are not logged in ▶️ Click to sign-up or login ×

Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

webfact

By webfact
in Thailand News

Recommended Posts

canuckamuck Diamond Member

canuckamuck

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

If we are going to entertain the metaphor of a sentient planet. I would say the planet is very old and fondly remembers the good old days when it was warmer and there were dinosaurs and rain forests even in the far north. I would think the planet would say. Don't worry about that CO2, I got uses for that, but can you do something about that crap your dumping in the oceans?

And in addition I think the planet would be quite annoyed that the idiot socialists are trying to bring back cooling "to save the planet!". I think the planet would assume from this that our species is incapable of learning anything from history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 702
  • Created
  • Last Reply
mogandave Platinum Member

mogandave

Posted
Posted
 
Oh, so not even a whole state, just a bit of one of them, and the relevance?  Was that supposed to do something toward getting them off the hook?  This is the county producing the second largest amount of co2 and 2.5 times more than the country you wanted to see pressure put on.
 
Not sure why you think biofuel means taking food from the poor, it actually means the poor get to sell their traditionally bottom priced crop for a premium price, it also means a 95% reduction in co2 compared to fossil fuel, but don't let facts get in the way of your blind support of the fossil fuel industry.
 
I thought you wanted the worst polluters to do something about it?  The EU is the 3rd worst polluter yet when they start doing something about it you criticise them for it, what is it that you actually want, or is it just to criticise no matter what?
 
 
 


So here you go making up more stuff, pretending I said it.

I pointed out up-state New York and Nevada because they are in areas that are able to utilize hydro power.

Where did I say I wanted to put pressure on another country?

Biofuel takes food from the poor by using good farm land growing food and turning it into fuel. If you believe in supply and demand, you have to believe using corn to make fuel drives up the cost of corn. Also, the “net” benefit from bio is suspect, as it does nat take into consideration the CO2 generated in production.

I’m no criticizing the EU for trying to do something, I am criticizing biofuel as I think it silly.

I fully support nuclear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauGR1 Ruby Member

mauGR1

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 




I’m no criticizing the EU for trying to do something, I am criticizing biofuel as I think it silly.

I fully support nuclear.

What about nuclear waste ?

I support wind and solar energy, but we have a long way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kieran00001 Explorer Member

Kieran00001

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 


So here you go making up more stuff, pretending I said it.

I pointed out up-state New York and Nevada because they are in areas that are able to utilize hydro power.

Where did I say I wanted to put pressure on another country?

Biofuel takes food from the poor by using good farm land growing food and turning it into fuel. If you believe in supply and demand, you have to believe using corn to make fuel drives up the cost of corn. Also, the “net” benefit from bio is suspect, as it does nat take into consideration the CO2 generated in production.

I’m no criticizing the EU for trying to do something, I am criticizing biofuel as I think it silly.

I fully support nuclear.

 

 

 

Sorry, that was canaloni, I have been talking to both of you about similar things.

 

I see, so if the US can't make hydro everywhere then they have an excuse for supporting the current policy of increasing reliance on coal, is that it?

 

Sweden does not make biofuel from corn, they make it from sugar, are you concerned that the poor might have to pay more for sugar?  I believe that is part of the plan.  

 

To make a comparison to something the US policy is currently investing in, tar sand oil, which produces 107g or co2 per megajoule of energy in its production, ethanol, as they use in Sweden, produces just 36g of co2.  And then there is the much more dramatic 95% saving when it is burned.  It is clear where the criticism should be, and its not in Sweden.

 

You support nuclear cars?  What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mogandave Platinum Member

mogandave

Posted
Posted
 
 
Sorry, that was canaloni, I have been talking to both of you about similar things.
 
I see, so if the US can't make hydro everywhere then they have an excuse for supporting the current policy of increasing reliance on coal, is that it?
 
Sweden does not make biofuel from corn, they make it from sugar, are you concerned that the poor might have to pay more for sugar?  I believe that is part of the plan.  
 
To make a comparison to something the US policy is currently investing in, tar sand oil, which produces 107g or co2 per megajoule of energy in its production, ethanol, as they use in Sweden, produces just 36g of co2.  And then there is the much more dramatic 95% saving when it is burned.  It is clear where the criticism should be, and its not in Sweden.
 
You support nuclear cars?  What?


You seem reasonably bright, so when I used corn as an example I assumed you would understand that using farmland to grow sugar beets (or anything else) reduces the amount of farmland available to grow corn (or anything else) which drives up the cost of whatever crop biofuel is displacing.

You pointed out Sweden as a great example, but Sweden is situated such that they can get ~50% of their electricity from hydro.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kieran00001 Explorer Member

Kieran00001

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 


You seem reasonably bright, so when I used corn as an example I assumed you would understand that using farmland to grow sugar beets (or anything else) reduces the amount of farmland available to grow corn (or anything else) which drives up the cost of whatever crop biofuel is displacing.

You pointed out Sweden as a great example, but Sweden is situated such that they can get ~50% of their electricity from hydro.

 

 

In Sweden they buy sugar from Brazil, where it is estimated that sugarcane production can be doubled without effecting other crop yields.  The truth is, the majority of Brazil is still covered in natural vegetation, actually the vast majority, and that is what will be lost if they continue to increase biofuel production, it should not come at a loss to poor people, it should be a gain, but it will certainly come at a loss to natural habitats, but perhaps that is a loss worth taking if the only option would be to continue to pollute and thus put the same habitats at risk regardless.

 

Yes, it is easier for Sweden than many, but that is not why Trump is pushing coal production, he could be pushing all the sustainable energy types at the same time in different places, some states could have more hydro, some could have more wind and others more solar, and all of them could have more nuclear, yet we are seeing the president of the 2nd worst polluting country in the world choose further coal production. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catoni Silver Member

Catoni

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The top 5 producers of co2 per capita are, UAE, USA, Australia, Saudi and Canada.  The notion that this is a 3rd world problem is false, those countries just happen to have more people but each person pollutes far less, for instance a Chinese person is responsible for less than half of the co2 emissions as an American person, so to expect China to make the move before the US is completely unfair.

 

     In over-all global atmospheric CO2 contribution.... Canada produces only about 1.7 % of it.  

 

  And you want to go after Canada and let China off the hook...   You admire people like Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio and marchers in the streets and others for their Global Warming/Climate Change Alarmism...all while they use smart phones made with fossil fuel chemicals....   just like your lap top your using now.. and your TV you're going to watch later...

                 They all travel by CO2 producing vehicles...  fly first class in private jets to their five star hotels with air conditioned limousine service,  champagne and caviar banquets, enjoying their COP Climate Conferences in exotic destinations.

List of COP destinations up to now:....   nice...  

They all want the rest of us lowly peons to cut back on our "elaborate" hard working middle class lifestyle to "save the planet".... while they continue to live like kings in all their multi-millionaire luxury jet setting lifestyles...  multiple mansion homes and everything.. 

 

   If your living permanently in Thailand or Cambodia, or on a long term stay of many months and don't own your own CO2 producing car or little underbone motorbike... ...then your probably taking CO2 producing songtheaws or tuktuks....  If the odd one of you are riding a bicycle... good for you.  "Please excuse the rubber tires and plastic parts..."  

      

       Can you not see why all of us skeptics laugh at you guys ? ? ?   It's very obvious that none of you are really serious....  none of you really believe your own crap.. because you talk the talk... but you don't walk the walk..     More and more it's becoming quite clear that it's all just for a far left/big socialist government political agenda..  

 

  Have fun......  I hope to be back in Cambodia and Thailand very soon.  I miss that part of the world very very much.  This time I intend to stay.  

           

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauGR1 Ruby Member

mauGR1

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Catoni said:

 

     In over-all global atmospheric CO2 contribution.... Canada produces only about 1.7 % of it.  

 

  And you want to go after Canada and let China off the hook...   You admire people like Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio and marchers in the streets and others for their Global Warming/Climate Change Alarmism...all while they use smart phones made with fossil fuel chemicals....   just like your lap top your using now.. and your TV you're going to watch later...

                 They all travel by CO2 producing vehicles...  fly first class in private jets to their five star hotels with air conditoned limousines champagne and caviar COP Climate conferences in exotic destinations.

 

They all want the rest of us lowly peons to cut back on our "elaborate" hard working middle class lifestyle to "save the planet".... while they continue to live like kings in all their multi-millionaire luxury jet setting lifestyles...  multiple mansion homes and everything.. 

 

   If your living permanently in Thailand or Cambodia, or on a long term stay of many months and don't own your own CO2 producing car or little underbone motorbike... ...then your probably taking CO2 producing songtheaws or tuktuks....  If the odd one of you are riding a bicycle... good for you.  "Please excuse the rubber tires and plastic parts..."  

      

       Can you not see why all of us skeptics laugh at you guys ? ? ?   It's very obvious that none of you are really serious....  none of you really believe your own crap.. because you talk the talk... but you don't walk the walk..     More and more it's becoming quite clear that it's all just for a far left/big socialist government political agenda..  

 

  Have fun......  I hope to be back in Cambodia and Thailand very soon.  I miss that part of the world very very much.  This time I intend to stay.  

           

Agree with all you say, apart from the political bit.

Are you suggesting that Gore and Di Caprio are communists ?

The alarmists, as you call them, would gladly tax buffalo's farts while flying around the world in their luxury private jets... Definitely not communists imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catoni Silver Member

Catoni

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

Sorry, that was canaloni, I have been talking to both of you about similar things.

 

I see, so if the US can't make hydro everywhere then they have an excuse for supporting the current policy of increasing reliance on coal, is that it?

 

Sweden does not make biofuel from corn, they make it from sugar, are you concerned that the poor might have to pay more for sugar?  I believe that is part of the plan.  

 

To make a comparison to something the US policy is currently investing in, tar sand oil, which produces 107g or co2 per megajoule of energy in its production, ethanol, as they use in Sweden, produces just 36g of co2.  And then there is the much more dramatic 95% saving when it is burned.  It is clear where the criticism should be, and its not in Sweden.

 

You support nuclear cars?  What?

 

    Continue to make fun of my name, and you will start something here you will regret.

 

   Up to you !  

                Where are the Thai Visa moderators ? ?   Is the insulting use of someone's name now allowed ? ? ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catoni Silver Member

Catoni

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Agree with all you say, apart from the political bit.

Are you suggesting that Gore and Di Caprio are communists ?

The alarmists, as you call them, would gladly tax buffalo's farts while flying around the world in their luxury private jets... Definitely not communists imo.

 

   Are you suggesting they are conservatives or libertarians ?   From what I read somewhere... they both vote Democrat and support big government and more regulation. 

    Maybe not extreme communist....  but certainly they are borderline socialists with a Marxist bent.    

 

    They are what we might call "Champagne Socialists" like George Soros ..or "Silver Spoon Socialists" like Jane Fonda.... (who at one time long ago decribed herself as a "small "c" communist")

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauGR1 Ruby Member

mauGR1

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Catoni said:

 

   Are you suggesting they are conservatives or libertarians ?   From what I read somewhere... they both vote Democrat and support big government and more regulation. 

    Maybe not extreme communist....  but certainly they are borderline socialists with a Marxist bent.    

 

    They are what we might call "Champagne Socialists" like George Soros ..or "Silver Spoon Socialists" like Jane Fonda.... (who at one time long ago decribed herself as a "small "c" communist")

" Champagne Socialists' is appropriate imo, more champagne than socialists, for sure :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kieran00001 Explorer Member

Kieran00001

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Catoni said:

 

    Continue to make fun of my name, and you will start something here you will regret.

 

   Up to you !  

                Where are the Thai Visa moderators ? ?   Is the insulting use of someone's name now allowed ? ? ? 

 

Is that a threat?  And what exactly do you think you are going to do about it? 

Anyway, I thought that was your name, my mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kieran00001 Explorer Member

Kieran00001

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Catoni said:

 

     In over-all global atmospheric CO2 contribution.... Canada produces only about 1.7 % of it.  

 

  And you want to go after Canada and let China off the hook...   You admire people like Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio and marchers in the streets and others for their Global Warming/Climate Change Alarmism...all while they use smart phones made with fossil fuel chemicals....   just like your lap top your using now.. and your TV you're going to watch later...

                 They all travel by CO2 producing vehicles...  fly first class in private jets to their five star hotels with air conditioned limousine service,  champagne and caviar banquets, enjoying their COP Climate Conferences in exotic destinations.

List of COP destinations up to now:....   nice...  

They all want the rest of us lowly peons to cut back on our "elaborate" hard working middle class lifestyle to "save the planet".... while they continue to live like kings in all their multi-millionaire luxury jet setting lifestyles...  multiple mansion homes and everything.. 

 

   If your living permanently in Thailand or Cambodia, or on a long term stay of many months and don't own your own CO2 producing car or little underbone motorbike... ...then your probably taking CO2 producing songtheaws or tuktuks....  If the odd one of you are riding a bicycle... good for you.  "Please excuse the rubber tires and plastic parts..."  

      

       Can you not see why all of us skeptics laugh at you guys ? ? ?   It's very obvious that none of you are really serious....  none of you really believe your own crap.. because you talk the talk... but you don't walk the walk..     More and more it's becoming quite clear that it's all just for a far left/big socialist government political agenda..  

 

  Have fun......  I hope to be back in Cambodia and Thailand very soon.  I miss that part of the world very very much.  This time I intend to stay.  

           

 

 

No, it was you wanting to let countries off the hook, not me, so stop trying to squirm out of your assumption that this is a 3rd world issue and accept the fact that the US and the EU are the 2nd and 3rd highest consumers, it was you wanting to let them off the hook remember, you called it an attack on Western civilization while ironically calling for the worst culprit countries to be held to blame, remember?

 

I note that now you have moved on from your original claim that this is an issue for countries, clearly that does not suit you now that you know it is also Western countries who have to change, and so now you try to shift the goal posts that you set and now seek to put the blame on individuals.  So which is it?  Do we put pressure on the places producing the most, i.e. China, USA and EU, or on the individuals, which would be Americans first?  Up to you, either way Americans have to change their ways just like China does, so why point fingers and why try to pretend its India or Africa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kieran00001 Explorer Member

Kieran00001

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Catoni said:

 

   Are you suggesting they are conservatives or libertarians ?   From what I read somewhere... they both vote Democrat and support big government and more regulation. 

    Maybe not extreme communist....  but certainly they are borderline socialists with a Marxist bent.    

 

    They are what we might call "Champagne Socialists" like George Soros ..or "Silver Spoon Socialists" like Jane Fonda.... (who at one time long ago decribed herself as a "small "c" communist")

 

What is the precise reason you have stated that you believe DiCaprio has a "Marxist bent"?  This has got to be good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mogandave Platinum Member

mogandave

Posted
Posted
 
In Sweden they buy sugar from Brazil, where it is estimated that sugarcane production can be doubled without effecting other crop yields.  The truth is, the majority of Brazil is still covered in natural vegetation, actually the vast majority, and that is what will be lost if they continue to increase biofuel production, it should not come at a loss to poor people, it should be a gain, but it will certainly come at a loss to natural habitats, but perhaps that is a loss worth taking if the only option would be to continue to pollute and thus put the same habitats at risk regardless.
 
Yes, it is easier for Sweden than many, but that is not why Trump is pushing coal production, he could be pushing all the sustainable energy types at the same time in different places, some states could have more hydro, some could have more wind and others more solar, and all of them could have more nuclear, yet we are seeing the president of the 2nd worst polluting country in the world choose further coal production. 
 


If Brazil can double their sugar production without increasing prices why don’t they?

Hard to believe there is not market for ethanol...

How is Trump promoting coal?

How has he disincentivized wind, solar, nuclear and hydro?





Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kieran00001 Explorer Member

Kieran00001

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 


If Brazil can double their sugar production without increasing prices why don’t they?

Hard to believe there is not market for ethanol...

How is Trump promoting coal?

How has he disincentivized wind, solar, nuclear and hydro?

 

 

Brazil has increased sugar cane plantations by 10% and they have also increased the percentage turned into ethanol by 8% just in the past year, there are now zero cars on their roads that cannot use ethanol.  Of course there is a market for the stuff, we were just talking about their Swedish market.

 

Trump pledged to revive the coal industry, promoting coal was part of his campaign, he has also pledged to scrap the Clean Power Plan and he has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement in order to see that one through without legal repercussion.  He tried to cut the renewable energy budget by taking from existing carbon capture funding to further fund developments in coal mining, however his proposal was rejected.  So far, sustainable energy investment is surviving while coal continues to decline, it is not going Trumps way, but the point is that this is what America currently represents on the world stage, and some Americans want to point the finger at other countries, ludicrous.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chopperboy Silver Member

Chopperboy

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Brazil has increased sugar cane plantations by 10% and they have also increased the percentage turned into ethanol by 8% just in the past year, there are now zero cars on their roads that cannot use ethanol.  Of course there is a market for the stuff, we were just talking about their Swedish market.

 

Trump pledged to revive the coal industry, promoting coal was part of his campaign, he has also pledged to scrap the Clean Power Plan and he has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement in order to see that one through without legal repercussion.  He tried to cut the renewable energy budget by taking from existing carbon capture funding to further fund developments in coal mining, however his proposal was rejected.  So far, sustainable energy investment is surviving while coal continues to decline, it is not going Trumps way, but the point is that this is what America currently represents on the world stage, and some Americans want to point the finger at other countries, ludicrous.

 

 

Just tell us where the carbon tax goes like 1 Trillion dollars a year of it? Some goes into "Carbon Banks" like BLOOD & GORE where does the rest go and who gets it??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mogandave Platinum Member

mogandave

Posted
Posted
 

Brazil has increased sugar cane plantations by 10% and they have also increased the percentage turned into ethanol by 8% just in the past year, there are now zero cars on their roads that cannot use ethanol.  Of course there is a market for the stuff, we were just talking about their Swedish market.

 

Trump pledged to revive the coal industry, promoting coal was part of his campaign, he has also pledged to scrap the Clean Power Plan and he has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement in order to see that one through without legal repercussion.  He tried to cut the renewable energy budget by taking from existing carbon capture funding to further fund developments in coal mining, however his proposal was rejected.  So far, sustainable energy investment is surviving while coal continues to decline, it is not going Trumps way, but the point is that this is what America currently represents on the world stage, and some Americans want to point the finger at other countries, ludicrous.

 

 

 

10% is hardly doubling, and their cars are probably burning it because it makes economic sense for them. Much like solar in remote areas.

 

How many times Brazil’s current production would it take to provide E85 for all the cars in the US?

 

Anytime farmers can make more money growing biofuel than food, they’ll grow biofuel. It does not make economic sense that this does not drive up food crop prices.

 

If 10 house painters are bidding on 10 houses that need painting, is the price the same as if there are 100 houses that need painting?

 

If each house takes 100 gallons of paint and there are 2,000 gallons of paint available, does paint become more expensive when 100 houses need painting?

 

 

Trump promoted a wall and a lot of other stuff that has not materialized either, so it is fair to say he’s done nothing.

 

In my opinion, government mandating alternative fuels does more to stifle technological advances than promote them.

 

I believe government investment should be in “pure” rather than applied science. IMO what we need is “super conductor” technology, not a lot of feel-good, idiotic wind turbines and solar programs.

 

Incidentally, energy costs are hideously regressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kieran00001 Explorer Member

Kieran00001

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

10% is hardly doubling, and their cars are probably burning it because it makes economic sense for them. Much like solar in remote areas.

 

How many times Brazil’s current production would it take to provide E85 for all the cars in the US?

 

Anytime farmers can make more money growing biofuel than food, they’ll grow biofuel. It does not make economic sense that this does not drive up food crop prices.

 

If 10 house painters are bidding on 10 houses that need painting, is the price the same as if there are 100 houses that need painting?

 

If each house takes 100 gallons of paint and there are 2,000 gallons of paint available, does paint become more expensive when 100 houses need painting?

 

 

Trump promoted a wall and a lot of other stuff that has not materialized either, so it is fair to say he’s done nothing.

 

In my opinion, government mandating alternative fuels does more to stifle technological advances than promote them.

 

I believe government investment should be in “pure” rather than applied science. IMO what we need is “super conductor” technology, not a lot of feel-good, idiotic wind turbines and solar programs.

 

Incidentally, energy costs are hideously regressive.

 

I didn't say it had doubled, I said studies have shown that it can double in size without effecting current crops, they have that much extra land.

 

Brazil cannot grow enough surplus sugar to fuel the US or the rest of the world, and your point is?

 

Why don't you want the price of sugar to go up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mogandave Platinum Member

mogandave

Posted
Posted
 
I didn't say it had doubled, I said studies have shown that it can double in size without effecting current crops, they have that much extra land.
 
Brazil cannot grow enough surplus sugar to fuel the US or the rest of the world, and your point is?
 
Why don't you want the price of sugar to go up?


I think you are being lazy or intellectually dishonest.

I thought you wanted to discuss this, my bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kieran00001 Explorer Member

Kieran00001

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, mogandave said:

 


I think you are being lazy or intellectually dishonest.

I thought you wanted to discuss this, my bad.

 

 

Clearly it is you who don't want a discussion or you would answer my questions, discussions go both ways.

 

So tell me, what point were you trying to make in asking how much more land Brazil would have to devote to sugar in order to supply the US?  And why do you keep expressing concern for the sugar price and conflating that with rising food prices?

 

As for superconductors, we were talking about energy sources, superconductors are not sources, they just make existing sources more efficient, where do you see that going without the renewable sources that you have dismissed as being "idiotic"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mogandave Platinum Member

mogandave

Posted
Posted
 
Clearly it is you who don't want a discussion or you would answer my questions, discussions go both ways.
 
So tell me, what point were you trying to make in asking how much more land Brazil would have to devote to sugar in order to supply the US?  And why do you keep expressing concern for the sugar price and conflating that with rising food prices?
 
As for superconductors, we were talking about energy sources, superconductors are not sources, they just make existing sources more efficient, where do you see that going without the renewable sources that you have dismissed as being "idiotic"?


I think your sugar price question is disingenuous. My concern in the price of food. Using resources that can be used to grow food to grow biofuel (generally) drives up the price of food.

Growing enough biofuel for Sweden in a lot different than growing enough for the US. In any event, by importing from Brazil, Sweden is effectively exporting their CO2.

You really do not see the relevance of reducing energy demands by 90%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauGR1 Ruby Member

mauGR1

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 


I think your sugar price question is disingenuous. My concern in the price of food. Using resources that can be used to grow food to grow biofuel (generally) drives up the price of food.

Growing enough biofuel for Sweden in a lot different than growing enough for the US. In any event, by importing from Brazil, Sweden is effectively exporting their CO2.

You really do not see the relevance of reducing energy demands by 90%?
 

I think that biofuel has already been dismissed as  globally unsustainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kieran00001 Explorer Member

Kieran00001

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 


I think your sugar price question is disingenuous. My concern in the price of food. Using resources that can be used to grow food to grow biofuel (generally) drives up the price of food.

Growing enough biofuel for Sweden in a lot different than growing enough for the US. In any event, by importing from Brazil, Sweden is effectively exporting their CO2.

You really do not see the relevance of reducing energy demands by 90%?
 

 

 

The resource that is being lost is virgin forest, I do not know of any example of expanding farm lands that has resulted in higher food prices, plenty where it has reduced food prices though, like every single time actually.  Why is it that you assume that making more farms would make food more expensive.  Think of your old painting houses analogy, more farms would be more paint available, thus cheaper by your logic.

 

I am aware that supplying Sweden is a different thing to supplying the US, the US would need to grow over twice as much sugar as they currently grow corn in order to meet their current total fuel demand, but surely you are not of the idiotic, 'if you cant completely eradicate the problem then what is the point in easing the problem at all', brigade?

 

How is buying biofuel from another country exporting their co2?  They could be buying South American fossil fuels, that would be exporting 20x as much co2, are you criticizing those countries, let me guess, you are just generally criticizing everything that helps, and you have no argument beyond the fact that it doesn't help enough on its own.

 

There's a couple little problems with your superconductor assumptions, one is that we are already seeing efficiency reaching 45% for modern power generation and transmission and so although superconductors could help increase that efficiency, they also require tremendous amounts of power to run, perhaps that will change but there no evidence to suggest that they will not.  Which leads to the second problem, you want to abandon all the current developments in energy production to concentrate funding on superconductors, but what your shortsightedness neglects you to consider, is that they might never get there, in which case we would have wasted all the time we had to develop other solutions, thankfully we will probably never have someone in charge who is blinkered by one idea.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catoni Silver Member

Catoni

Posted
Posted
On 9/26/2018 at 8:22 PM, markaoffy said:

Ah the science deniers are out! Usually the uneducated Stars and Stripes variety


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

        I deny that certain people in this TV group who claim to want to "save the planet" from Gore Bull Warming are really concerned about Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change. 

     They are, instead, actually concerned with bringing down western capitalism, and building Socialism/Marxist-Leninism. 

     They want to give countries like China, India and Russia a pass.. and go after the U.S., Canada, Australia, Europe and Japan for their CO2 production, and ignore the countries that are the greatest producers of CO2 and even increasing their CO2 production.

    While the U.S. is decreasing CO2 production...  China is the world's number 1 producer of CO2 and increasing more and more...   "But let's ignore that fact and concentrate on the U.S. and other western industialised capitalist nations."

 

    *** Runaway Expansion of Coal Power in China ***

 

     "Chinese coal-fired power plants, thought to have been cancelled because of 
government edicts, are still being built and are threatening to 'seriously 
undermine' global climate goals, researchers have warned. 

Satellite photos taken in 2018 of locations in China reveal cooling towers and 
new buildings that were not present a year earlier at plants that were meant to 
stop operations or be postponed by orders from Beijing. 
 

The projects are part of an 'approaching tsunami' of coal plants that would 
boost China's existing coal capacity by 25%, according to the research group 
Coalswarm. 

The total capacity of the planned coal power stations is about 259GW, bigger 
than the American coal fleet and 'wildly out of line' with the Paris climate 
agreement, the group said in a new report." 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/26/satellite-images-show-runaway- 
expansion-of-coal-power-in-china 

or https://is.gd/ZFSifV 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...