PDA

View Full Version : US to Leave Paris Agreement


mattsmith48
May 31st, 2017, 11:06 AM
U.S. President Donald Trump has decided to follow through on a campaign pledge to pull the United States out of a global pact to fight climate change, a source who was briefed on the decision told Reuters, a move that should rally his support base at home while deepening a rift with U.S. allies abroad.

Trump, who has previously called global warming a hoax, refused to endorse the landmark climate change accord at a summit of the G7 group of wealthy nations, including Canada, on Saturday, saying he needed more time to decide. He then tweeted that he would make an announcement this week.

The decision will put the United States in league with Syria and Nicaragua as the world's only non-participants in the Paris Climate Agreement.

It could have sweeping implications for the deal, which relies heavily on the commitment of big polluter nations to reduce emissions of gases scientists blame for sea level rise, droughts and more frequent violent storms.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-paris-accord-decision-1.4139037

The past couple weeks have been pretty entertaining, but we are back to the serious shit and sadly its the most serious issue we face, for the next 4 years the 2nd biggest polluting country in the world won't do anything against climate change.

Conspiracy theorist, you know who you are, please keep your bullshit out of this thread.

Sailor Mars
May 31st, 2017, 11:09 AM
No funny I'm gonna run for presidency... -_-

God what a fuckhead

Dalcourt
May 31st, 2017, 11:47 AM
Really sad but clearly what I expected to happen.
A great step towards ruining our future instead of making this nation great again.

Sailor Mars
May 31st, 2017, 12:11 PM
Really sad but clearly what I expected to happen.
A great step towards ruining our future instead of making this nation great again.

Right? And the people who still are devoted to believing he's helping our nation needs a slap of reality.

Reality is that the Earth is dying, our economy is pretty fucked, there's thousands of people living in poverty, thousands of kids not being able to eat or are obese, corporate corruption, unemployment, towns are still without water, racism and homophobia is still extremely evident in our society, and oh yeah who can forget the fucking threat of nuclear war hanging over our heads.

But Trumps making it great "again" right?

Voice_Of_Unreason
May 31st, 2017, 01:15 PM
Good riddance I say, but I won't say anymore since the OP is so closed-minded.

Snowfox
May 31st, 2017, 02:30 PM
One thing that annoys me is that treaties like Paris puts more pressure to those nation that do produce goods and no pressure to nations that actually consume those goods.
Also unfair pressure to nations that are closer to arctic areas where heating during long winters is necessary. Its easy to be hypocrite when living at mild climate area.

Maybe Trump was thinking this.

mattsmith48
May 31st, 2017, 03:11 PM
One thing that annoys me is that treaties like Paris puts more pressure to those nation that do produce goods and no pressure to nations that actually consume those goods.
Also unfair pressure to nations that are closer to arctic areas where heating during long winters is necessary. Its easy to be hypocrite when living at mild climate area.

Maybe Trump was thinking this.

Yes because Washington, DC and New York are really close to the Arctic. He's doing this because he believes that Climate Change is a hoax from China and that burning coal is clean energy and present no risk from human's health, because when you think of a coal miner you immediately think clean and healthy.

The Paris agreement puts pressure on polluters, it turns out those countries are also producing a lot of shit and if they are going to continue producing that shit they should do it in a clean way. When you are dead money is useless.

Dalcourt
May 31st, 2017, 03:17 PM
Maybe Trump was thinking this.

I don't think Trump is thinking at all that's the main problem.

Small islands have already been swallowed by the ocean and coastlines completely changed. Climate change affects the sea level and my hometown as well as other places in the US like New York and Miami will follow not tomorrow but it is going to happen...but yeah it will all be called a hoax till it is too late.

It's not about wanting to make you suffer and freeze to death. It's equally bad for our climate if we use coal to produce electricity to run air conditioning or fans in our wonderful mild climate here. It's about finding alternatives to produce energy. The Paris Agreement is made to push all nations into the direction of developing non polluting ways of creating energy etc.

So as a whole I don't really feel this agreement is excessively unfair to anyone in Europe or the USA...the only thing that is unfair is that we destroy the Earth for the future generations.

Snowfox
May 31st, 2017, 03:26 PM
Yes because Washington, DC and New York are really close to the Arctic. He's doing this because he believes that Climate Change is a hoax from China and that burning coal is clean energy and present no risk from human's health, because when you think of a coal miner you immediately think clean and healthy.

The Paris agreement puts pressure on polluters, it turns out those countries are also producing a lot of shit and if they are going to continue producing that shit they should do it in a clean way. When you are dead money is useless.

You missed my point.
My point in nutshell is that in some nations there are lots of industry. Industry is generally polluting. While some nations do not practically have any industry but they buy those products like cars steel etc from places where they are manufactured.
Paris treaty concentrates to punishing those who manufacture things instead of those who consume those things.
Lets take example a car.
Car rolls from factory. its making caused some pollution to happen as well as its use in future. But no one would have build that car at first place if there would not have been people wanting to buy it. So actually one who buys car is responsible of all that pollution.

Burning coal is not clean but its also not as unclean than it used to be. it highly depends of level of technology that is used. And I wasn't talking only from american perspective cause I am not american. Where I live we really are quite close to arctic circle. Here you need more energy to get same things done than lets say in California or Italy.

ShineintheDark
May 31st, 2017, 05:23 PM
You also have to bear in mind that it's the duty of the nation involved to make sure the companies stick to their limits. For example, when Vauxhall lied about their emissions, if Germany had no incentive to [punish them, then it doesn't matter if they had buyers or not because the company would have no incentive to develop more eco-friendly products.

mattsmith48
May 31st, 2017, 07:04 PM
You missed my point.
My point in nutshell is that in some nations there are lots of industry. Industry is generally polluting. While some nations do not practically have any industry but they buy those products like cars steel etc from places where they are manufactured.
Paris treaty concentrates to punishing those who manufacture things instead of those who consume those things.
Lets take example a car.
Car rolls from factory. its making caused some pollution to happen as well as its use in future. But no one would have build that car at first place if there would not have been people wanting to buy it. So actually one who buys car is responsible of all that pollution.

Under this agreement everyone as to lower the amount of greenhouse gas they put in the atmosphere, does not matter if its the country who build the car or the country who buys it, they both have to set regulations and pass laws to limit the pollution.

Burning coal is not clean but its also not as unclean than it used to be. it highly depends of level of technology that is used. And I wasn't talking only from american perspective cause I am not american. Where I live we really are quite close to arctic circle. Here you need more energy to get same things done than lets say in California or Italy.

They are cleaner ways tho to produce that extra energy that we need during the winter.

Phosphene
May 31st, 2017, 09:18 PM
I'm honestly ashamed to live in a country whose president brushes aside a serious issue like this as if it has no effect on anyone.

mattsmith48
June 1st, 2017, 12:19 AM
Just saw this tweet from Neil deGrasse Tyson

If I and my advisors had never learned what Science is or how & why it works, then I’d consider pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord too.

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/870104138943791105

lliam
June 1st, 2017, 08:54 AM
https://picload.org/image/riopilpr/trunp-out-off-paris.gif

Uniquemind
June 1st, 2017, 11:05 AM
This is bad.

But this is in line with the future I predicted a while back in earlier posts.

It's true there are some elements of unfairness on the consumer side of things that need addressing.

But it's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Everything has slight imperfections., even essays I turn in for school aren't perfect, but they get A's, I don't throw then out because of slight imperfections, I'm on a timelimit. Earth is also on a timelimit with this global warming thing. We have approximately 40 years to get this right after Trump leaves office due to term limits.

Business interests (especially the women's health products that make tampons, pads, and toiletries like toilet paper) also contribute to Global Warming because they're made from specialized aged wood of the amazon forest because the wood pulp is soft and absorbent, which you can't get from any other natural resource.

So deforestation policy globally needs to be looked at too, not just pollution.


It's a hard issue to tackle because it's geopolitical and crosses geographical legal lines, where US Constitution and US influence can only do so much.

Snowfox
June 1st, 2017, 12:38 PM
Under this agreement everyone as to lower the amount of greenhouse gas they put in the atmosphere, does not matter if its the country who build the car or the country who buys it, they both have to set regulations and pass laws to limit the pollution.

This is exactly why its wrong. If we say everyone has to cut 20% of greenhouse gases its way easier for for example poland to do it with 50 years old soviet era technology than some western nation where all steps that are practical are already made. Also my point is that consumer is at the end responsible of all I mean all pollution that product has made from raw materials to dumpsite all lifeline of that what ever thing we are making.



They are cleaner ways tho to produce that extra energy that we need during the winter.

Only one being nuclear energy and "leftist green" people have irrational hatred towards it. So practically there is no alternative

mattsmith48
June 1st, 2017, 02:44 PM
Only one being nuclear energy and "leftist green" people have irrational hatred towards it. So practically there is no alternative

Ask people who lived in Fukushima and Chernobyl if its irrational. They are other green ways like geothermal energy or solar power.

Babs
June 1st, 2017, 08:20 PM
we're not on mars yet folks.

Sailor Mars
June 1st, 2017, 08:25 PM
we're not on mars yet folks.

Implying Mars is an option in the first place...

mattsmith48
June 1st, 2017, 09:49 PM
Implying Mars is an option in the first place...

Until we can either restart Mars' magnetic field or create an artificial one Mars is not an option.

mattsmith48
June 1st, 2017, 11:45 PM
A Delaware-sized iceberg is very close to splitting off from one of the largest ice shelves in Antarctica, scientists say, after a fast-growing crack stretched to within 8 miles (13 kilometers) of the open ocean this week.

Last month, aerial observations showed that the crack had shifted toward the edge of the ice sheet and the open ocean, leading scientists to estimate that an iceberg more than 300,000 times the size of the one that sunk the Titanic could calve off as soon as summer.

The formation of the iceberg fits within a broader trend of shrinking ice shelves in the region, which scientists believe is linked to global warming.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-antarctic-iceberg-idUSKBN18T00C

This is Antarctica's response to Trump leaving the Paris Agreement.

“I believe there’s climate change. I believe there’s been climate change since the beginning of time,” Walberg is seen saying. “Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No.”

Walberg added, “Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”

http://www.salon.com/2017/06/01/michigan-republican-god-can-take-care-of-climate-change-problems/

Are they really this stupid or they are doing this on purpose?

Phosphene
June 2nd, 2017, 12:09 AM
Babs Mars mattsmith48 When our environment goes to shit - more so than it has already, that is - Mars may not be habitable, but we have this:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/22/14674088/7-planet-solar-system-discovered-for-life-conditions-water-nature-nasa

Babs
June 2nd, 2017, 12:31 AM
Babs Mars mattsmith48 When our environment goes to shit - more so than it has already, that is - Mars may not be habitable, but we have this:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/22/14674088/7-planet-solar-system-discovered-for-life-conditions-water-nature-nasa

I like the planet we already have. :lol:

you'd think it would be easier not to destroy an entire planet. we don't have the technology to colonize another planet, but we do have multiple sources of clean renewable energy.

Voice_Of_Unreason
June 2nd, 2017, 12:52 AM
It's so funny watching y'all pretend that the Paris Agreements was actually going to do anything along the lines y'all claim it would. Even going by your pseudo-science, the Paris Accords would have done squat about climate change. But please, keep your freak on, I love this material, makes excellent comedy.

Beauregard
June 2nd, 2017, 01:08 AM
It's so funny watching y'all pretend that the Paris Agreements was actually going to do anything along the lines y'all claim it would. Even going by your pseudo-science, the Paris Accords would have done squat about climate change. But please, keep your freak on, I love this material, makes excellent comedy.

So what is your glorious solution then and of course D.Trump's? Pretending everything is fine?
Problems don't go away by ignoring them and denying them.
It's always easy to dismiss solutions others trying to work out as stupid without coming up with better ones.

So it's the same here as we see it with each and every other problem.
Sad and poor America for having become the joke of the whole world.

Babs
June 2nd, 2017, 01:09 AM
It's so funny watching y'all pretend that the Paris Agreements was actually going to do anything along the lines y'all claim it would. Even going by your pseudo-science, the Paris Accords would have done squat about climate change. But please, keep your freak on, I love this material, makes excellent comedy.

shit u right
http://i.imgur.com/bKLrshz.jpg

Eric Rom
June 2nd, 2017, 04:02 AM
It was expected. He had been very vocal about it even in his campaigns.

Voice_Of_Unreason
June 2nd, 2017, 09:07 AM
So what is your glorious solution then and of course D.Trump's? Pretending everything is fine?
Problems don't go away by ignoring them and denying them.
It's always easy to dismiss solutions others trying to work out as stupid without coming up with better ones.

So it's the same here as we see it with each and every other problem.
Sad and poor America for having become the joke of the whole world.
I am not denying anything here, I am simply stating what you call fact. If you look it up, almost every actual climate prediction for the next hundred years has the Paris Accords doing, at most, a 0.1 degree reduction in temperature. If the Paris Accords were somehow renewed, and withheld perfectly for another 70 years, the temperature would only decrease by 0.2 degrees, and that is a generous estimate. Source (http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises), Source (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/)

http://www.lomborg.com/sites/lomborg.com/files/paris_graph_vers_2_660_w.jpg
Tell me how I am being a denier again, shall you?

Snowfox
June 2nd, 2017, 09:26 AM
Ask people who lived in Fukushima and Chernobyl if its irrational. They are other green ways like geothermal energy or solar power.

It is irrational. Fukushima was destroyed by tsunami what happened in its powerplant is pretty much non issue cause of that tsunami which destroyed place allready.

Also its irrational cause if we count deathtoll from all energy sources and look produced kilowatt hours nuclear power is safest. Also its affordable.

Solar power works fine when sun shines but sun doesnt shine 24/7/365 same with wind power. Also solar is anything but affordable. Geothermal energy works fine in places like Iceland where Crust (is that right term???) is fairly thin. But it works horrible bad other places. I dont say that in for example Nevada should not use Solar it works fine there most probably. But in Scandinavia where during wintertime (which is 6 months believe me) sun shines maybe 3 -5 hours a day solar power is just bad joke.

Solar and wind are generally not reliable enough that energy which we need would be possible to make with those methods.

Beauregard
June 2nd, 2017, 09:45 AM
I am not denying anything here, I am simply stating what you call fact. If you look it up, almost every actual climate prediction for the next hundred years has the Paris Accords doing, at most, a 0.1 degree reduction in temperature. If the Paris Accords were somehow renewed, and withheld perfectly for another 70 years, the temperature would only decrease by 0.2 degrees, and that is a generous estimate. Source (http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises), Source (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/)

image (http://www.lomborg.com/sites/lomborg.com/files/paris_graph_vers_2_660_w.jpg)
Tell me how I am being a denier again, shall you?

And that's why we should do nothing at all?
Sure the Paris accord is no cure but its there to help people to think about that it's already 5 minutes past midnight for our climate and that something must be done. It's not forbidden by the accord to do more other the basic stuff agreed on.

Pilyk
June 2nd, 2017, 10:30 AM
Bad news for the Green Climate Fund and international effort against climate change issues :/ ...
The US' governments still doesn't take its reponsability, that's sad. Will Mr Trump one day remeber his country is part of a more vast world?

#MakeOurPlanetGreatAgain

Voice_Of_Unreason
June 2nd, 2017, 10:58 AM
And that's why we should do nothing at all?
Sure the Paris accord is no cure but its there to help people to think about that it's already 5 minutes past midnight for our climate and that something must be done. Why should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars into something you freely admit is just symbolic? Why should we lose hundreds of thousands of manufacturing and energy jobs because of a purely symbolic agreement? Why should we force people to pay more for items like electricity over a symbolic statement? Why should we reduce US sovereignty over a symbolic statement?

Pilyk
June 2nd, 2017, 12:28 PM
Why should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars into something you freely admit is just symbolic? Why should we lose hundreds of thousands of manufacturing and energy jobs because of a purely symbolic agreement? Why should we force people to pay more for items like electricity over a symbolic statement? Why should we reduce US sovereignty over a symbolic statement?

Maybe because if no one does anything things are going to go even worst.
Maybe because we are not in 1850 anymore and the jobs creations nowadays are in renewable energies and new technologies, not in coal industry.
Maybe because all the other countries in our whole world aggreed to make similar efforts.

Voice_Of_Unreason
June 2nd, 2017, 01:54 PM
Maybe because if no one does anything things are going to go even worst.? Did I not just explain how scientists admit the Paris Accord isn't going to do anything?
Maybe because we are not in 1850 anymore and the jobs creations nowadays are in renewable energies and new technologies, not in coal industry.You can make that argument, but it would still result in job loss in manufacturing, and would almost certainly increase energy costs for all Americans.
Maybe because all the other countries in our whole world aggreed to make similar efforts.So???:confused:

Pilyk
June 2nd, 2017, 05:24 PM
? Did I not just explain how scientists admit the Paris Accord isn't going to do anything?
You can make that argument, but it would still result in job loss in manufacturing, and would almost certainly increase energy costs for all Americans.
So???:confused:

I meant few is better than doing nothing. More than the a minima defined goals that have been taken, the idea was to go further and follow a path on a path for a more sustainable development and help the poorest countries to do so, through the Green Climate Fund.

On short-term perhaps, but if the USA continue on this way instead of modernizing their production appartus, they won't be competitive for long in an open market economy.

As an industralized and developped country, which I think they are, they should help and show the way.

Then, I think the cities, states, citizens, companies etc. will take their responsability and do for the best even without the support of the federal government.
Yet, in my opinion, this decision went against the symbolic fact nearly all the nations did find an agreement on climate issues; that was rather good news for both diplomacy and the planet.

mattsmith48
June 3rd, 2017, 11:45 PM
Babs Mars mattsmith48 When our environment goes to shit - more so than it has already, that is - Mars may not be habitable, but we have this:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/22/14674088/7-planet-solar-system-discovered-for-life-conditions-water-nature-nasa

We have no idea what does planets look like what kind of atmosphere they have, if they support liquid water on the surface or if they are even habitable. And if they are habitable and there is some kind of alien life intelligent or not we can't invade the place and live there. It would be easier and cheaper to build sky cities on Venus and future toxic unlivable shit hole we currently call Earth.

It is irrational. Fukushima was destroyed by tsunami what happened in its powerplant is pretty much non issue cause of that tsunami which destroyed place allready.

Also its irrational cause if we count deathtoll from all energy sources and look produced kilowatt hours nuclear power is safest. Also its affordable.

You have sources to support that claim?

Solar power works fine when sun shines but sun doesnt shine 24/7/365 same with wind power. Also solar is anything but affordable. Geothermal energy works fine in places like Iceland where Crust (is that right term???) is fairly thin. But it works horrible bad other places. I dont say that in for example Nevada should not use Solar it works fine there most probably. But in Scandinavia where during wintertime (which is 6 months believe me) sun shines maybe 3 -5 hours a day solar power is just bad joke.

Solar and wind are generally not reliable enough that energy which we need would be possible to make with those methods.

Scientist came up with something to store energy so we can use it when the Sun and wind are unavailable I believe they call it batteries.

Why should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars into something you freely admit is just symbolic? Why should we lose hundreds of thousands of manufacturing and energy jobs because of a purely symbolic agreement? Why should we force people to pay more for items like electricity over a symbolic statement? Why should we reduce US sovereignty over a symbolic statement?

? Did I not just explain how scientists admit the Paris Accord isn't going to do anything?
You can make that argument, but it would still result in job loss in manufacturing, and would almost certainly increase energy costs for all Americans.
So???:confused:

Since your care so much about jobs why don't you support renewable energy it takes 79 times more people to produce energy from the Sun than coal?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/050317Slide1.png

Phosphene
June 4th, 2017, 12:44 AM
mattsmith48 that wasn't meant to be taken completely seriously :P I was just offering an alternative in response to your Mars post.

Snowfox
June 4th, 2017, 02:13 AM
mattsmith48 You have sources to support that claim?

Yes I do. Wikipedia List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll
Then we calculate how much kilowatt hours have been made by nuclear energy.
And then we can compare that data to coal mine accidents and deaths from air pollution. and do that math again.
We actually did that in school science class.


mattsmith48 Scientist came up with something to store energy so we can use it when the Sun and wind are unavailable I believe they call it batteries.

Batteries have capacity limit you know this. And so far there doesnt exist batteries with high capacity of storage that are affordable for that scale. also batteries have huge losses.

Pumping water from low to high is better solution for storage but again it can not be done everywhere.

mattsmith48
June 4th, 2017, 12:54 PM
mattsmith48 You have sources to support that claim?

Yes I do. Wikipedia List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll
Then we calculate how much kilowatt hours have been made by nuclear energy.
And then we can compare that data to coal mine accidents and deaths from air pollution. and do that math again.
We actually did that in school science class.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

mattsmith48 Scientist came up with something to store energy so we can use it when the Sun and wind are unavailable I believe they call it batteries.

Batteries have capacity limit you know this. And so far there doesnt exist batteries with high capacity of storage that are affordable for that scale. also batteries have huge losses.

Pumping water from low to high is better solution for storage but again it can not be done everywhere.

Batteries could last long enough until we can generate electricity from the Sun and Wind. If you live so close to the Arctic Circle that you only have a few hours of sun light every day during the winter, it means that you are getting a lot of sun light during the summer and you should take advantage of that and during the winter wind power remains a great option it doesn't take extremely strong wind to generate electricity

Snowfox
June 4th, 2017, 03:20 PM
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.



Batteries could last long enough until we can generate electricity from the Sun and Wind. If you live so close to the Arctic Circle that you only have a few hours of sun light every day during the winter, it means that you are getting a lot of sun light during the summer and you should take advantage of that and during the winter wind power remains a great option it doesn't take extremely strong wind to generate electricity

Wikipedia is reliable enough when you combine it with other sources like googling about it.

When it comes to wind power well currently used type of windpowerplant needs 5 m/s wind to even operate and maximum wind it can operate is around 15-16 m/s. If wind is less than 5 m/s windmill is kept rolling by external power usually aggregate to prevent it from jamming. If wind is too high it has to make emergency stop to prevent it from ripping it self apart.
Current subsidizing by government is doing lots of harm to renewable energy allowing inefficent ways of production exist. True market price should be affordable.
Finland where i live produces around 20% of all electrical energy with renewable way by using wast forests we have. That would be possible in canada too but not in uk. Peat also is renewable while natural process that generates new peat is fairly slow.

mattsmith48
June 5th, 2017, 11:50 AM
Wikipedia is reliable enough when you combine it with other sources like googling about it.

If you find other sources that confirm what you read on Wikipedia use those sources instead.

When it comes to wind power well currently used type of windpowerplant needs 5 m/s wind to even operate and maximum wind it can operate is around 15-16 m/s. If wind is less than 5 m/s windmill is kept rolling by external power usually aggregate to prevent it from jamming. If wind is too high it has to make emergency stop to prevent it from ripping it self apart.
Current subsidizing by government is doing lots of harm to renewable energy allowing inefficent ways of production exist. True market price should be affordable.
Finland where i live produces around 20% of all electrical energy with renewable way by using wast forests we have. That would be possible in canada too but not in uk. Peat also is renewable while natural process that generates new peat is fairly slow.

Peat might be slowly renewable, but using it for energy is destroying the habitat of many species and puts as much CO2 in the atmosphere than coal, that's two things we do not want to do. The investing in renewable energy it should also be environmentally friendly and produce no greenhouse gaz, if using our forest for energy respect those criteria I have no problem with using it, if you find anything on this I invite you to share it on here. I still think Finland and other northern countries should take advantage of the great amount of Sunlight they receive during the Summer and if you can't store all of the excess of energy you are generating you can always sell it.

JessC
June 11th, 2017, 10:03 AM
If you find other sources that confirm what you read on Wikipedia use those sources instead.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61253-7/fulltext

And as well as those, Wikipedia contains its own sources...that's how it works!

Snowfox
June 11th, 2017, 10:51 AM
Thank you JessC

mattsmith48
June 11th, 2017, 11:17 AM
And as well as those, Wikipedia contains its own sources...that's how it works!

Using the sources on Wikipedia is fine, but using Wikipedia as a source is not.

Post edited. ~Amethyst Rose

Voice_Of_Unreason
June 11th, 2017, 12:21 PM
Modern rechargeable batteries can only last a few weeks before they start exponentially losing power. Also, current batteries are only capable of storing enough current for small households. Battery power would be ineffective for larger buildings like apartments, factories, and hospitals. That's why those buildings consistently have a back-up generator, not back-up batteries.

mattsmith48
June 11th, 2017, 01:48 PM
Ok I stand as corrected. My point is he is still our president voted in by the American people ,so what's that tell us about the American people ? We are just as bad as he is for putting him in office.

Actually it tells something about the 46.1% who voted for Trump and I think they are worst than him, that campaign lasted two years and they had to really try to not know what they we're getting into. When they voted for him they knew if he wins, the US are not doing anything on climate change for the next 4 years, and for a lot of them they didn't care, a lot of Trump supporters like PlasmaHam really believe that climate scientist are scheming hoaxers and that China created climate change to hurt the US economy.

Modern rechargeable batteries can only last a few weeks before they start exponentially losing power. Also, current batteries are only capable of storing enough current for small households. Battery power would be ineffective for larger buildings like apartments, factories, and hospitals. That's why those buildings consistently have a back-up generator, not back-up batteries.

Which is why we need to invest in that to find better and more reliable ways to store great quantity of energy from solar and wind power.

Phosphene
June 11th, 2017, 01:51 PM
MOD NOTE: Please stay on topic so the original subject of this thread doesn't get lost in irrelevant election discussion. Posts have been edited/deleted.

Snowfox
June 11th, 2017, 02:50 PM
Actually it tells something about the 46.1% who voted for Trump and I think they are worst than him, that campaign lasted two years and they had to really try to not know what they we're getting into. When they voted for him they knew if he wins, the US are not doing anything on climate change for the next 4 years, and for a lot of them they didn't care, a lot of Trump supporters like PlasmaHam really believe that climate scientist are scheming hoaxers and that China created climate change to hurt the US economy.



Which is why we need to invest in that to find better and more reliable ways to store great quantity of energy from solar and wind power.

for wind there aint good alternatives. For solar there is alternative called wood.
Forests are secondary solarpower... Fotosynthesis transforms solar power to energy which is storaged in tree. Burning wood releases this solar power...
Anyway We should build more nuclearpower plants in case we are concerned about CO2 emissions.
This in case we actually believe climate change. This climate change thing could just as well be HUGE scam to make us feel sorry and to ruin our economy. Communist plan to destroy us.
It can be true and it can be false

mattsmith48
June 11th, 2017, 03:20 PM
for wind there aint good alternatives. For solar there is alternative called wood.
Forests are secondary solarpower... Fotosynthesis transforms solar power to energy which is storaged in tree. Burning wood releases this solar power...
Anyway We should build more nuclearpower plants in case we are concerned about CO2 emissions.

So why not just use solar panels instead? Burning wood release CO2 in the atmosphere, that CO2 traps heat from the Sun and it heats up the planet, we want to stop doing that. Also trees, what wood comes from, transform CO2 into Oxygen, you know that thing we are breathing, so trees are much more use full alive. If you don't like wind than you still have geothermal and hydro.

This in case we actually believe climate change. This climate change thing could just as well be HUGE scam to make us feel sorry and to ruin our economy. Communist plan to destroy us.
It can be true and it can be false


Conspiracy theorist, you know who you are, please keep your bullshit out of this thread.

Voice_Of_Unreason
June 11th, 2017, 04:00 PM
So why not just use solar panels instead? Burning wood release CO2 in the atmosphere, that CO2 traps heat from the Sun and it heats up the planet, we want to stop doing that. Also trees, what wood comes from, transform CO2 into Oxygen, you know that thing we are breathing, so trees are much more use full alive. If you don't like wind than you still have geothermal and hydro. But doesn't solar farms result in the destruction of hundreds or even thousands of acres of woodland each? Just near me over a 100 acres were cleared for a solar farm that doesn't even provide that much power.

bonbon
June 11th, 2017, 04:47 PM
I am not denying anything here, I am simply stating what you call fact. If you look it up, almost every actual climate prediction for the next hundred years has the Paris Accords doing, at most, a 0.1 degree reduction in temperature. If the Paris Accords were somehow renewed, and withheld perfectly for another 70 years, the temperature would only decrease by 0.2 degrees, and that is a generous estimate. Source (http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises), Source (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/)


Nope. This has been debunked already. The consensus by far is that the reduction would be of 0.9C, and that's significantly more than what Bjorn Lomborg claims. See for example
here (https://www.climateinteractive.org/insights/response-to-white-house-talking-points-on-paris-agreement/ ). There's a damn good discussion on the global warming topic here (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293855) that gives a lot of sources and debunk Lomborg's claims (and others) way better than I could.

Lomborg's theories are not supported by the majority of the scientific theory. According to his wikipedia entry, the man has been caught several times giving plain wrong numbers to support his point of view, so anything published on his website would have to be taken with a very critical eye, and be crosschecked against other scientific sources.

mattsmith48
June 11th, 2017, 05:54 PM
But doesn't solar farms result in the destruction of hundreds or even thousands of acres of woodland each? Just near me over a 100 acres were cleared for a solar farm that doesn't even provide that much power.

Yes if you build it in a forest

Snowfox
June 12th, 2017, 12:43 PM
mattsmith48 What you miss now is that CO2 that is released to atmosphere when burning wood is part of CO2 cycle. Its different than burning coal or oil or natural gas.
How it is??? Well there is naturally some CO2 in atmosphere and it is bind to trees and orther plants while they grow. Burning wood relases it back to atmosphere only for it to be binded again to some other plant when that plant grows. We are not adding any extra carbon to atmostphere by using bio fuels. We are just utilizing natures own version of energy storage.

Secondly I am not conspiracy theorist even if I happen to not to completele believe current political truth.

mattsmith48
June 12th, 2017, 01:05 PM
mattsmith48 What you miss now is that CO2 that is released to atmosphere when burning wood is part of CO2 cycle. Its different than burning coal or oil or natural gas.
How it is??? Well there is naturally some CO2 in atmosphere and it is bind to trees and orther plants while they grow. Burning wood relases it back to atmosphere only for it to be binded again to some other plant when that plant grows. We are not adding any extra carbon to atmostphere by using bio fuels. We are just utilizing natures own version of energy storage.

The tree dying and releasing CO2 while decomposing is part of CO2 cycle. Humans cutting it down to burn it is not.

Snowfox
June 12th, 2017, 01:16 PM
The tree dying and releasing CO2 while decomposing is part of CO2 cycle. Humans cutting it down to burn it is not.

Wrong we humans are part of nature and what ever we do to that tree is as much natural as any other fate that tree might have.
Also when it dies it doesnt release CO2 it rots and CH4 (methane) is released.
Cycle happens even when we humans do interact and do what ever we do. Earth is system and . Every time when we cut trees down we plant new ones so after all our forests are bigger year after year in Finland. We dont consume as much as we plant.

mattsmith48
June 12th, 2017, 01:30 PM
Wrong we humans are part of nature and what ever we do to that tree is as much natural as any other fate that tree might have.
Also when it dies it doesnt release CO2 it rots and CH4 (methane) is released.
Cycle happens even when we humans do interact and do what ever we do. Earth is system and . Every time when we cut trees down we plant new ones so after all our forests are bigger year after year in Finland. We dont consume as much as we plant.

The only time burning wood is natural is when you are camping and you are making a fire. Burning it for energy is not natural. We're did you see that trees release methane when they die?

Snowfox
June 12th, 2017, 01:32 PM
decomposition generally does release methane and carbon dioxide

Dmaxd123
June 12th, 2017, 03:05 PM
so where is a good place to build a solar farm?

you know where they wanted to build a solar farm close to me: farms, they wanted the flattest fields to rent from the farmer. one farmer will probably do it because they suck at farming so it will be easy $$ for them, another farmer looked and said "I can pour a giant concrete pad and lose some of my most fertile ground? hell no!"

I think once solar becomes a bit more feasible and can be installed more efficiently ON buildings then it's a good choice, but right now the feasibility is through tax credits which means they aren't actually paying for themselves so not economically viable yet. Or they are being put up in solar farms which depending upon the location aren't great for the environment either

I think we as a nation need to be cognizant of our actions and the effects they could have both short and long term, but do we necessarily need to be part of some global initiative? probably not. just because we aren't part of the Paris Agreement doesn't mean we are going to start polluting just for the sake of it.

Snowfox
June 12th, 2017, 03:24 PM
Dmaxd123 Dont you realize that being part of some agreement is seen as imperative for Left/green people Its all about feel good attitude, Minor nuisances like reality dont matter.

Building windmills and solarcells is just sacrifice to their green religion. Does it do actually any good is irrelevant to them

Voice_Of_Unreason
June 12th, 2017, 11:47 PM
Yes if you build it in a forest

Where then are you supposed to create solar farms in naturally wooded areas, like where I live, where all the undeveloped land is heavily wooded?
The only time burning wood is natural is when you are camping and you are making a fire. Burning it for energy is not natural. We're did you see that trees release methane when they die?
Everything releases methane when it dies, everything. Are you saying that man should stop harvesting plants and killing animals for meat on the basis that that releases methane too?

Wood burning is entirely natural. Forest fires are an essential part of the natural lifespan of woodlands. There is nothing unnatural about wood burning, it is just one part of the natural system of destruction and rebirth. Anyway, I thought Leftist ideology was that mankind isn't bound to nature anymore; why then are you suddenly appealing to nature? We can discuss the environmental impacts on wood burning, but to say that the burning of wood is unnatural unless you are doing a campfire is just absurd

Dalcourt
June 13th, 2017, 12:17 AM
Where then are you supposed to create solar farms in naturally wooded areas, like where I live, where all the undeveloped land is heavily wooded?


It's not all about solar energy. If you do some research in this field you would find that there are suitable forms of creating energy for all regions of the world.
As a whole people just tend to rush to one idea and thus one gets governmental money without really thinking it through.

In five years we will then see that this source we used had bad effects in certain areas.

Why this happens? We lived in denial about environmental problems far to long and now people are just panicking and rushing to grab the first straw offered.

Had we listened to early warning sings that we destroy our planet and hadn't waited till 5 past midnight to do something there would have been time to find suitable solutions for all areas and we could have calculated possible risks this new energy forms have.

DriveAlive
June 13th, 2017, 12:21 AM
Solar energy is not efficient enough and the chemicals used in the production of the panels are extremely toxic.

Canada is destroying the environment with their cheap lumber harvesting and inhumane animal trapping policies.

The climate deal was not binding and forced the United States into a difficult economic position while allowing China and India to get away with more pollution, if they would have even followed the policy at all. It was nothing more than a feel good distraction that allowed foreign countries to hurt our economy.

Murk
June 13th, 2017, 04:43 AM
While I'm not bringing any proof to the table, this is my opinion on the matter.
As I see it, the agreement could have had harmful economic effects.
Pulling out is what I see as a good choice for the time being. (There are no such things as political condoms at this time. Haha jk)
The cleaner production of power is important, but it should be noted the mass deforestation is just if not more harmful. Forests are what clean the air, and help protect the environment, removing them will only lead to a smog crisis such as seem in parts of China. Is there anywhere for the contaminants to go? No, you ain't seeing any trees where the problems are, are ya. This is humble opinion this second. I cannot think of any better examples this time, but I will post more on this later. Why did I bring China in to this? Don't ask me. What we need is a mass covfefe. That is all.

mattsmith48
June 13th, 2017, 03:20 PM
Where then are you supposed to create solar farms in naturally wooded areas, like where I live, where all the undeveloped land is heavily wooded?

Well you can put on roof of houses and building, large fields someone mention farms... there is a lot of possibilities.

Everything releases methane when it dies, everything. Are you saying that man should stop harvesting plants and killing animals for meat on the basis that that releases methane too?

Well we still need to eat, eating meat less often or stopping completely would help, but I understand that its not for everyone.

Wood burning is entirely natural. Forest fires are an essential part of the natural lifespan of woodlands. There is nothing unnatural about wood burning, it is just one part of the natural system of destruction and rebirth. Anyway, I thought Leftist ideology was that mankind isn't bound to nature anymore; why then are you suddenly appealing to nature? We can discuss the environmental impacts on wood burning, but to say that the burning of wood is unnatural unless you are doing a campfire is just absurd

Forest fires are something that is natural, humans cutting down trees to burn them for energy is not.

DriveAlive If I was to bring up Canada, when it comes to the environment, oil sand and Mr Trudeau's precious pipelines would come to mind a lot faster than hardwood lumber and killing baby seals with baseball bats.

DriveAlive
June 13th, 2017, 06:33 PM
Well you can put on roof of houses and building, large fields someone mention farms... there is a lot of possibilities.



Well we still need to eat, eating meat less often or stopping completely would help, but I understand that its not for everyone.



Forest fires are something that is natural, humans cutting down trees to burn them for energy is not.

DriveAlive If I was to bring up Canada, when it comes to the environment, oil sand and Mr Trudeau's precious pipelines would come to mind a lot faster than hardwood lumber and killing baby seals with baseball bats.
That is only because we prioritize oil and trees and animals differently.

mattsmith48
June 13th, 2017, 08:55 PM
That is only because we prioritize oil and trees and animals differently.

Sure but shouldn't having clean air to breath and reduce the amount of carbon we dump in the atmosphere be more important to everyone?

DriveAlive
June 13th, 2017, 11:03 PM
Sure but shouldn't having clean air to breath and reduce the amount of carbon we dump in the atmosphere be more important to everyone?

One of the biggest arguments you hear for reducing fossil fuels is that they are nonrenewable and we do not want to use them all up for future generations. Well, if they whole plan is to eliminate their usage and go to completely renewable energy, then there is no reason to try to save these fossil fuels. It would be far better to use them all right now and keep energy cheap and economic growth strong so that we have the money to invest in renewable energy once we need it the most. I guarantee that once all of the coal and oil is gone, Exon is not just going out of business. These energy companies are going to be the future of renewable energy because they have the money and resources to really create efficient and clean energy sources, but only once it is necessary.

So with this point of view, it is clear why I prioritize the natural environment and wildlife over sticking it to the fossil fuel industry.

Devinsoccer
June 14th, 2017, 01:21 AM
The fact that we are putting so much money into this agreement whereas China and Russia are puting in nothing. To me that's waisting taxpayer money. Also, we can help with climate change without the agreement. We don't need an agreement to change the enviorment. So I'm in with the POTUS. The Paris agreement was to screw the americans anyway.

Voice_Of_Unreason
June 14th, 2017, 01:23 AM
Well you can put on roof of houses and building, large fields someone mention farms... there is a lot of possibilities.
So, are you admitting that major solar farms would not work here?


Forest fires are something that is natural, humans cutting down trees to burn them for energy is not. That's some questionable logic if I have ever seen it, but let me refer to my prior question. Why are you appealing to nature, when you have claimed repeatedly that man is no longer bound by nature?

mattsmith48
June 14th, 2017, 11:08 AM
So, are you admitting that major solar farms would not work here?

I just said you can put them on buildings and houses it wouldn't be a solar farm, but it would provided those buildings and houses with clean energy. There is also other option than solar power, like wind, geothermal and hydro.

That's some questionable logic if I have ever seen it, but let me refer to my prior question. Why are you appealing to nature, when you have claimed repeatedly that man is no longer bound by nature?

When did I say that?

Voice_Of_Unreason
June 15th, 2017, 10:58 AM
When did I say that? You refuse appeals to nature when it comes to abortion, transgenderism, gender ideology, and vaccines. For all these cases you have claimed that we are not bound by doing things the "natural" way. Why then do you think cutting down a tree is a moral wrong because it "isn't natural" but then think that anal sex, genital mutilation, killing human babies, and injecting people with toxic metals are perfectly moral, despite that these acts clearly run against nature?

Sailor Mars
June 15th, 2017, 12:10 PM
Please keep this thread on topic before posts are deleted and/or this thread is locked. Thank you.

mattsmith48
June 15th, 2017, 12:21 PM
You refuse appeals to nature when it comes to abortion, transgenderism, gender ideology, and vaccines. For all these cases you have claimed that we are not bound by doing things the "natural" way. Why then do you think cutting down a tree is a moral wrong because it "isn't natural" but then think that anal sex, genital mutilation, killing human babies, and injecting people with toxic metals are perfectly moral, despite that these acts clearly run against nature?

Wow! if this isn't being misinformed I don't know what it is. First I'm actually against circumcision. Being homosexual, transgender or wanting to protect yourself and others against deadly diseases is completely natural.

Phosphene
June 22nd, 2017, 01:51 PM
The VT Daily Chronicle :arrow2: Ramblings of the Wise

This has begun to turn into a debate. Also, please be respectful when replying and stay on topic.