The Climate thread

[Jhawkmvp 1489]

Don't worry. Since humans would rather hoard/fight over resources than share them, and ignore problems rather than face/solve them, when large scale migration starts to occur the nukes will fly. Then the nuclear winter will solve this whole global warming crisis. Just paint yourself white to deflect the nuclear blast or wear SPF two million and everything should be fine.  

Spoiler

What happened to us? I remember as a kid the world wide response to the hole in the ozone layer. Was there major push back then too, but I was just to young to see it? Is it because it affects O&G and they have so many people in their pocket? I know part of it is people as a whole are less scientifically literate, but is it that much worse?

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

9 hours ago, Jhawkmvp said:

Don't worry. Since humans would rather hoard/fight over resources than share them, and ignore problems rather than face/solve them, when large scale migration starts to occur the nukes will fly. Then the nuclear winter will solve this whole global warming crisis. Just paint yourself white to deflect the nuclear blast or wear SPF two million and everything should be fine.  

  Hide contents

What happened to us? I remember as a kid the world wide response to the hole in the ozone layer. Was there major push back then too, but I was just to young to see it? Is it because it affects O&G and they have so many people in their pocket? I know part of it is people as a whole are less scientifically literate, but is it that much worse?

 

Why did you spoiler that?

[Dbeasy 14962]

If the world has really peaked in fossil fuels and significant climate change policies do finally start happening in the next few years, has anyone done a study on what that will mean economically for the state of Texas and the University of Texas system? Because I’m inclined to guess that it will be catastrophic. Just curious.

[Dahobbs 17420]

26 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

If the world has really peaked in fossil fuels and significant climate change policies do finally start happening in the next few years, has anyone done a study on what that will mean economically for the state of Texas and the University of Texas system? Because I’m inclined to guess that it will be catastrophic. Just curious.

Texas' economy is much more diversified than in the past. And Texas is actually at the forefront of renewable energy in the United States. It'll definitely have an impact, but I don't think it'll be catastrophic and I think the State is well positioned to actually benefit from a shift to renewable energy.  (the University of Texas system question is more interesting and more likely to be problematic, but I don't know enough to comment)

https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=TX

Quote

 

Renewable energy sources contribute nearly one-fifth of the net electricity generated in Texas and account for one-fifth of the total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation from all nonhydroelectric renewable sources.118 The state has encouraged renewable energy use by authorizing construction of transmission lines to bring electricity from remote wind farms to urban market centers.119 Wind accounts for nearly all of the electricity generated from renewable resources in Texas, and the state leads the nation in wind-powered electricity generation, producing almost three-tenths of the U.S. total.120 In 2011, Texas was the first state to reach 10,000 megawatts of installed wind generating capacity.121 At the end of 2018, Texas had about 24,185 megawatts of wind capacity installed, and, by the end of 2019 installed capacity was about 28,800 megawatts.122,123 Utility-scale wind facilities in Texas (those with capacities of 1 megawatt or greater) accounted for more than one-fifth of the state's total generating capacity and produced more than one-sixth of the state's net generation in 2019.124 More than 6,200 megawatts of additional wind generation capacity are under construction.125

The high levels of direct solar radiation in the western part of the state give Texas some of the greatest solar power potential in the nation, and the state was the country's sixth-largest producer of solar power in 2019.126,127 Decreased costs for solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and improved transmission access have resulted in rapid increases in solar PV capacity in Texas.128 Installed solar capacity in the state doubled between 2017 and 2019, exceeding 3,100 megawatts in 2019. Nearly one-fifth of Texas solar generation came from customer-sited, small-scale (less than 1 megawatt) facilities in 2019.129,130

Texas has abundant biomass and biofuel resources.131 Biomass fuels less than 0.5% of the state's electricity generation, but Texas does produce liquid biofuels.132 The state has four biofuels plants in the agriculturally rich high plains region in the Texas Panhandle. Those plants have the capacity to produce almost 400 million gallons of ethanol per year from corn and sorghum feedstocks.133,134 The state also has 8 biodiesel producers capable of providing about 375 million gallons of biodiesel per year.135 There are two wood pellet plants in Texas with a combined capacity of nearly 550,000 tons per year.136,137,138

Texas has two dozen hydroelectric power plants that typically contribute less than 0.5% to in-state electricity generation.139,140 The relatively gentle terrain and low rainfall throughout much of the state are not conducive to hydroelectric power development. Despite a large number of non-powered dams in Texas, the potential for further hydroelectric development is limited.

 

Other articles:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/texas-is-the-center-of-the-global-corporate-renewable-energy-market

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-produced-more-energy-from-renewable-sources-than-coal-last-year-11842205

 

[WhatTheBuck 28703]

16 hours ago, Dirk X West said:

I'm well aware of the Dems' shitty record on climate change.   Anyone who pays a bit of attention to this stuff knows that.

I voted for Bernie in the primaries.  I'm a member of the DSA.

We need to elect Biden and then fight him and protest and put every possible form of pressure on him just as we have on trump, but all the same, more trump will be worse than even status quo Biden.  It will.

Compared to the Republicans, who are a fully funded subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry, the record of the Democrats on GLOBAL WARMING has been stellar. Al Gore out front should've...oh fuck it, he's standing right in front of you shouting, "HELLO!"

By calling it "climate change" you're a victim of the fossil fuel industry's campaign of denial. They're the ones who introduced the term to distract from the nature of the problem and to give them a means of minimizing it because climate always changes. Not this rapidly ever before in history, of course, but the distraction works. Don't fall for it. Anthropogenic global warming is the problem. 

We have a president who is blatantly denying science out loud in public. The Republicans have been denying science for decades but they've never been so blatant about it.  I mean, it's been obvious what they were doing to anyone paying attention, but now we have Trump actually uttering the words "science doesn't know" and saying he knows better. Out loud, in public, while the cameras are rolling. 

The Democrats are up against a well funded and well organized political machine. Battling ignorance is tough, especially when we have a generally undereducated public (another Republican goal achieved) that prefers a reassuring lie over an inconvenient truth. Better to pretend a tough problem doesn't exist than to make the hard choices necessary to solve it. (Not coincidentally, that's also Trump's answer to the pandemic.)

The Democrats may have a shitty record on "climate change" but at least they're fighting for the right cause. Their record is one of battles lost, not one of battles not fought. 

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

 

Its the lesser of two evils, but the spread between those two evils is large enough to matter.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

22 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Compared to the Republicans, who are a fully funded subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry, the record of the Democrats on GLOBAL WARMING has been stellar. Al Gore out front should've...oh fuck it, he's standing right in front of you shouting, "HELLO!"

By calling it "climate change" you're a victim of the fossil fuel industry's campaign of denial. They're the ones who introduced the term to distract from the nature of the problem and to give them a means of minimizing it because climate always changes. Not this rapidly ever before in history, of course, but the distraction works. Don't fall for it. Anthropogenic global warming is the problem. 

We have a president who is blatantly denying science out loud in public. The Republicans have been denying science for decades but they've never been so blatant about it.  I mean, it's been obvious what they were doing to anyone paying attention, but now we have Trump actually uttering the words "science doesn't know" and saying he knows better. Out loud, in public, while the cameras are rolling. 

The Democrats are up against a well funded and well organized political machine. Battling ignorance is tough, especially when we have a generally undereducated public (another Republican goal achieved) that prefers a reassuring lie over an inconvenient truth. Better to pretend a tough problem doesn't exist than to make the hard choices necessary to solve it. (Not coincidentally, that's also Trump's answer to the pandemic.)

The Democrats may have a shitty record on "climate change" but at least they're fighting for the right cause. Their record is one of battles lost, not one of battles not fought. 

I always thought it was changed to "climate change" because the deniers kept using the "it's not warming!  look at the blizzards!" excuse.

[elfenix 34169]

23 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

They're the ones who introduced the term to distract from the nature of the problem and to give them a means of minimizing it because climate always changes.

they started flogging it a couple decades ago but the term had been around for decades prior.  the IPCC has been around since 1988, the journal Climatic Change has been around since the late 70s and the first paper using the term was published in 1956, 19 years before the term 'global warming' came up in scientific literature. 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28703]

17 minutes ago, elfenix said:

they started flogging it a couple decades ago but the term had been around for decades prior.  the IPCC has been around since 1988, the journal Climatic Change has been around since the late 70s and the first paper using the term was published in 1956, 19 years before the term 'global warming' came up in scientific literature. 

 

Oh, the "term" had been around? BFD. I'm talking about public awareness, public discourse, and the messaging of the denial machine. The term "climate change" didn't replace the term "global warming" in common parlance until sometime after after Al Gore made a movie about "A Global Warning."

But let's focus on irrelevant and trivial minutiae. That's what the shag/surl does best. 

[elfenix 34169]

On 9/17/2020 at 8:58 AM, Dbeasy said:

If the world has really peaked in fossil fuels and significant climate change policies do finally start happening in the next few years, has anyone done a study on what that will mean economically for the state of Texas and the University of Texas system? Because I’m inclined to guess that it will be catastrophic. Just curious.

so looks like it's a shit sandwich for texas either way

https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

On 9/14/2020 at 4:38 PM, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Only if you live in Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, anywhere in Florida (eh), New York City, LA, Portland, Seattle, San Diego, DC, Boston, Baltimore, Atlantic City, San Francisco, Anchorage; or have friends or family who live there; or work for companies or industries who have major investments in coastal areas; or live anywhere that people who live in those areas may have to relocate to.

Otherwise, I'm sure you'll be fine.

 

The abstract of the paper the article cites:

Theory has suggested that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may be inherently unstable. Recent observations lend weight to this hypothesis. We reassess the potential contribution to eustatic and regional sea level from a rapid collapse of the ice sheet and find that previous assessments have substantially overestimated its likely primary contribution. We obtain a value for the global, eustatic sea-level rise contribution of about 3.3 meters, with important regional variations. The maximum increase is concentrated along the Pacific and Atlantic seaboard of the United States, where the value is about 25% greater than the global mean, even for the case of a partial collapse.

 

So actually about 12-13 feet along the US Pacific and Atlantic Coasts. 

I’m at 5000. I’m good. I’m thinking jobs will be easier to get after all the coasties drown. Or my house value will be good if all the coasties move. Win-win. 

[elfenix 34169]

[elfenix 34169]

california to ban sales of new gas powered passenger vehicles by 2035.  signed on the hood of a mach-e, and i believe that is bill ford on the right:

Quote

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling for California to ban new gasoline-fueled vehicles within 15 years in a bid to combat climate change and make the state the first in the nation to stop sales of cars with internal combustion engines.

The Democratic governor on Wednesday signed an executive order that directs the California Air Resources Board to establish regulations requiring that all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California in 2035 be zero-emission vehicles.

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/09/23/newsom-calls-for-california-ban-on-new-gas-fueled-cars-by-2035-1317947

[EuroHorn 3204]

Will be interesting to see how they meet increased electricity demand given they are moving away from gas fired plants and have shuttered nuclear. Perhaps more frequent rolling blackouts 

[tantric superman 4667]

Goddamn, San Antonio is like Africa hot already.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

4 hours ago, EuroHorn said:

Will be interesting to see how they meet increased electricity demand given they are moving away from gas fired plants and have shuttered nuclear. Perhaps more frequent rolling blackouts 

It will be.  I have every confidence in battery technology that has been radically advancing and a combination of renewable energy resources and some fossil fuel sources.  The future can be beautiful, you just have to embrace it.  Can't WAIT for your response.

[Cacti 191]

3 hours ago, EuroHorn said:

Will be interesting to see how they meet increased electricity demand given they are moving away from gas fired plants and have shuttered nuclear. Perhaps more frequent rolling blackouts 

Maybe gas fired plants aren’t the devil after all. Link

Quote

California, which imposed rolling blackouts during an oppressive heat wave on two days last month, on Tuesday extended the lives of four aging natural gas plants it has been seeking to retire for a decade.

 

[Revolution512 1480]

I’m guessing things will continue to suck in California. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Here's some nice new propaganda going around

https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-wrong-with-wind-and-solar/

 

 

[elfenix 34169]

Solar now cheapest energy at utility scale:

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34372005/solar-cheapest-energy-ever/

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

On 9/24/2020 at 3:50 PM, Neonmoon said:

Here's some nice new propaganda going around

https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-wrong-with-wind-and-solar/

 

 

 

Are wind, solar, and batteries the magical solutions to all our energy needs?

 

Stopped reading right there.

 

[elfenix 34169]

GM and Ford scientists knew cars caused climate change back in the 60s. 50+ years later the phrase "we need to transition from fossil fuels" is controversial. 
 

Quote

With the approval of her supervisors, Reck began studying global warming in the late '60s. The first topic she explored was aerosols, or tiny particles that can come from automobiles, power plants and factories.

GM executives were optimistic about the research. They believed it would show aerosols had a significant cooling effect on the atmosphere, canceling out the warming effect of carbon dioxide.

The executives thought aerosols "might actually negate the effects of the CO2 coming off. And so they were positively thinking that maybe the use of fossil fuels by the automobile could be neutral," Reck said.

The findings showed otherwise.

...

Reck later presented her findings to Roger Bonham Smith, who became chairman and CEO of GM in 1981, and Robert "Bob" Stempel, who succeeded Smith in 1990.

"We would sit down and they would look at the papers, and I would explain to them what they were looking at," she said, adding, "They were aware of things that were going on."

ford literally hired a guy as he was publishing papers calling out anthropogenic climate change:

Quote

After graduating from Harvard University and earning a doctorate in physics from Princeton University, Plass taught physics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. He left academia in 1955 and joined Ford's research staff the following year.

Before arriving at Ford, Plass had published a series of eye-grabbing pieces on the climate, including a 1956 article in the magazine American Scientist titled "Carbon Dioxide and the Climate" and a 1956 paper in the journal Tellus titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change."

Both pieces made a bold claim: Humanity was responsible for heating the Earth since 1900 by burning fossil fuels and pumping massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063717035

Edited October 27, 2020 by elfenix

[elfenix 34169]

Quote

Global ice loss has increased rapidly over the past two decades, and scientists are still underestimating just how much sea levels could rise, according to alarming new research published this month.

From the thin ice shield covering most of the Arctic Ocean to the mile-thick mantle of the polar ice sheets, ice losses have soared from about 760 billion tons per year in the 1990s to more than 1.2 trillion tons per year in the 2010s, a new study released Monday shows. That is an increase of more than 60 percent, equating to 28 trillion tons of melted ice in total — and it means that roughly 3 percent of all the extra energy trapped within Earth’s system by climate change has gone toward turning ice into water.

 

“That’s like more than 10,000 ‘Back to the Future’ lightning strikes per second of energy melting ice around-the-clock since 1994,” said William Colgan, an ice-sheet expert at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. “That is just a bonkers amount of energy.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/01/25/ice-melt-quickens-greenland-glaciers/

Edited January 27, 2021 by elfenix

[Biff Tannen 45491]

55 minutes ago, elfenix said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/01/25/ice-melt-quickens-greenland-glaciers/

1.21 GIGAWATTS!

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Here's some news and then some "entertainment" from Fox:

 

[elfenix 34169]

General Motors to eliminate gasoline and diesel light-duty cars and SUVs by 2035
By Steven Mufson

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/01/28/general-motors-electric/

[Biff Tannen 45491]

27 minutes ago, elfenix said:

General Motors to eliminate gasoline and diesel light-duty cars and SUVs by 2035
By Steven Mufson

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/01/28/general-motors-electric/
 

Nice.  The writing is clearly on the wall.  I'm wondering when the domino effect will truly start.

[elfenix 34169]

we've spent $6.4 trillion dollars on post 9/11 wars.  which can't be said to have made us demonstrably safer.  meanwhile we shove our fingers in our ears and shout loudly in response to actual threats like climate change, disease, and stupidity. 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

6 minutes ago, elfenix said:

we've spent $6.4 trillion dollars on post 9/11 wars.  which can't be said to have made us demonstrably safer.  meanwhile we shove our fingers in our ears and shout loudly in response to actual threats like climate change, disease, and stupidity. 

I kind of think it's inevitable and necessary.  Gaia gonna knock us down a few pegs and see if there's enough of us left to learn to do better.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Ben Shapiro doesn't have his own thread and that's okay, he spreads his dumbassery over multiple topics and this particular one happens to be regarding the climate....

Does this man not understand what a global increase of 4 degrees Celsius would be like? He is thinking like, "la-di-dah, it's sixty-five degrees when I step outside to get the paper in my tighty whiteys and it's sixty-nine when I leave for work..." (Farenheit because that's how most Americans think).

 

But I love his additional response below the tweet because the video is hilarious....

 

[elfenix 34169]

5° C displaces a billion people in northern india/western china as farming becomes impossible.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

13 minutes ago, elfenix said:

5° C displaces a billion people in northern india/western china as farming becomes impossible.

Like Ben cares about that, Parker's point was right--it's not just his half baked logic, it's that he doesn't care whether it's half-baked.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Ben Shapiro doesn't have his own thread and that's okay, he spreads his dumbassery over multiple topics and this particular one happens to be regarding the climate....

Does this man not understand what a global increase of 4 degrees Celsius would be like? He is thinking like, "la-di-dah, it's sixty-five degrees when I step outside to get the paper in my tighty whiteys and it's sixty-nine when I leave for work..." (Farenheit because that's how most Americans think).

 

But I love his additional response below the tweet because the video is hilarious....

 

Tens of millions of people nod along with this asshole.  We are so fucked.

[elfenix 34169]

Exxon wants the government to pay $100 billion to clean up Exxon's mess:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Exxon-Floats-100-Billion-Government-Backed-16114009.php

[Biff Tannen 45491]

So here's the response I just got from my "representative" after I sent him an email to support climate change legislation.  I didn't expect much, but I fucking hate this state sometimes.  Roger Williams, fyi.

Quote

Dear Mr. Tannen,

Thank you for contacting me with your opinions regarding climate change. It is good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

We have seen considerable research and information pertaining to climate change and how it effects every one of us. While we can agree that the climate is changing, there is little evidence that demonstrates the potential effect that new regulations would have on stopping or reversing damage already done. Congress must fight the urge to impose burdensome regulations that would hurt the economy and levy costly fees on the backs of taxpayers. As Congress considers climate change legislation, be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind and do all that I can to address the issue responsibly and effectively.

 

[elfenix 34169]

35 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So here's the response I just got from my "representative" after I sent him an email to support climate change legislation.  I didn't expect much, but I fucking hate this state sometimes.  Roger Williams, fyi.

 

i would say to send him this but the US is rather resilient so, america first or some shit:

https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/climate-and-natural-catastrophe-risk/expertise-publication-economics-of-climate-change.html

 

[Post Oak 20182]

 

US electricity emissions are halfway to zero

If you squint just right.

 

 

https://www.volts.wtf/p/us-electricity-emissions-are-halfway

 

[elfenix 34169]

^^

 

GrEeN eNeRgY kIlLs JoBs!

( @Ridingtosunset )

Edited April 23, 2021 by elfenix

[GRHorn 105]

Coming soon to Joe Biden’s America?
 

How many posters here looking forward to eating mealworms for protein? You need to walk the walk. To save the climate. 🙄 

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

Every time this thread is bumped I look to see who did it.  This turned out exactly as I expected.

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

 

since it was bumped anyway, looks like 2021 fire season in the west is expected to be as bad or worse than 2020, which broke all records.

 

Oregon:

https://lebanon-express.com/news/local/osu-researchers-warn-2021-fire-season-may-be-even-worse-than-2020/article_0d93cb9c-fa7a-5071-a92a-84cfd278de06.html

“The situation looks as bad or worse than last year,” O’Neill said in a Monday press release. “Drought conditions have not recovered from last year, particularly in southern and eastern Oregon. Soil moistures remain low, and the vegetation fuel moisture has not recovered.”

The 2020 fires were possibly the most widespread in well over a century.

“From Sept. 7 to 9, 2020, an estimated 11% of the Oregon Cascades burned in several large fires in western Oregon,” according to the release. “The fires, which stretched from Clackamas County at the north to Douglas County at the south, burned more area of the Oregon Cascades than had burned in the previous 36 years combined and likely exceeded the area burned in any single year in at least the last 120 years, the researchers found."

 

California:

https://abc7news.com/california-fire-season-ca-wildfires-wildfire-bay-area/10575293/

California's top fire officials are sending a loud warning, that this upcoming fire season could quickly become the worst on record.

...The new concerns come just as California endured its worst fire season ever -- more than four million acres burned, with six of the most destructive events in the state's history.

 

Colorado:

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/with-less-moisture-experts-worried-the-2021-fire-season-could-be-as-bad-as-2020

Much of the western United States has seen less than 85% of the snow it is used to getting and it is worrying some about the fire season ahead.

...2020 saw one of the worst fire seasons in U.S. history. More than 10.27 million acres burned across the country, the most since accurate records began in 1983, and it happened on the heels of a year that brought good moisture.

This year, that moisture is less. According to data from state agencies that track snowpack, the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California have seen 77% of its normal snowfall, Colorado basins are at 93%, and Utah basins are at 82%.

 

 

[Updawg 2261]

Just a matter of time before west Austin gets burned bad

[WhatTheBuck 28703]

If you could produce a scientific study that proved human activity, burning fossil fuels, wasn’t causing global warming, and could be reproduced and proven by other studies and published in reputable scientific journals, the money would come pouring in. The climate scientists aren’t living in gated communities. 

Nobody wants it to be true. And even if it wasn’t true, climate science would still be a thing and would still get funded by any responsible government. If Michael Mann could produce evidence that fossil fuels would last forever and that we could use them without negatively impacting the climate, he would. Why wouldn’t he? Man, that would be awesome.

One more time: NO ONE WANTS IT TO BE TRUE!

Fucking morons. Pretend there’s no such thing as politics and learn just a little something about science and the evidence is inescapable. I’ve known about the scientific consensus since 1990. If you’re an American and deny the scientific consensus then you’re a Republican. Period. And you have an opinion about a scientific subject simply because of the party you vote for and it has absolutely nothing to do with your understanding of the science. In short, you’re a fucking moron.

Again: YOU’RE A FUCKING MORON!

Edited May 7, 2021 by WhatTheBuck

[elfenix 34169]

7 hours ago, GRHorn said:

looking forward to eating mealworms for protein?

isn't that the orange thing on your plate?

[GRHorn 105]

9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If you could produce a scientific study that proved human activity, burning fossil fuels, wasn’t causing global warming, and could be reproduced and proven by other studies and published in reputable scientific journals, the money would come pouring in. The climate scientists aren’t living in gated communities. 

Nobody wants it to be true. And even if it wasn’t true, climate science would still be a thing and would still get funded by any responsible government. If Michael Mann could produce evidence that fossil fuels would last forever and that we could use them without negatively impacting the climate, he would. Why wouldn’t he? Man, that would be awesome.

One more time: NO ONE WANTS IT TO BE TRUE!

Fucking morons. Pretend there’s no such thing as politics and learn just a little something about science and the evidence is inescapable. I’ve known about the scientific consensus since 1990. If you’re an American and deny the scientific consensus then you’re a Republican. Period. And you have an opinion about a scientific subject simply because of the party you vote for and it has absolutely nothing to do with your understanding of the science. In short, you’re a fucking moron.

Again: YOU’RE A FUCKING MORON!

You seem hangry. Did you miss your mealworm ration?

6 hours ago, elfenix said:

isn't that the orange thing on your plate?

I’mdoingmypart.gif

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

 

welp, I just added another troll to the ignore list.

[Dahobbs 17420]

17 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Coming soon to Joe Biden’s America?
 

How many posters here looking forward to eating mealworms for protein? You need to walk the walk. To save the climate. 🙄 

 

You understand that this is not a requirement that people replace meat with insect-based food, right? This just allows places to include mealworms in food. I would think a libertarian or small government conservative would appreciate a change that allows people the freedom to choose what they want to eat. Frankly, I'm surprised that mealworms weren't allowed previously. For instance, salted and/or chocolate covered crickets are actually quite tasty. I first had them as a kid at the Pecan Street festival.   

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

 

he's not a libertarian or small-government conservative. He's a troll, nothing more.

 

 

[Dahobbs 17420]

 

Quote

 

China’s carbon pollution now surpasses all developed countries combined

Carbon pollution from China's bustling, coal-intensive economy last year outstripped the carbon pollution of the US, the EU, and other developed nations combined, making up a whopping 27 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

As China’s economy has grown in the last 30 years, so too have its emissions. While pollution from developed countries has largely been flat since 1990, it has more than tripled in China. The country’s soaring emissions and stable population mean that its per capita emissions have grown quickly, too. At 10.1 tons per person, emissions are just below the 10.5 ton average of the 37-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD.

The US still leads the world in per capita emissions, at 17.6 tons per person, according to Rhodium Group's numbers, though President Joe Biden has pledged that the US will halve emissions by 2030. The other developed countries in the report include all 27 current EU member states: the UK, Australia, Canada, Chile, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey.

China’s draconian lockdowns early in the COVID-19 pandemic allowed the country's economy to bounce back relatively quickly, and as a result, Rhodium expects that China's emissions per capita in 2020 will surpass the average of the OECD nations.

 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/chinas-carbon-pollution-now-surpasses-all-developed-countries-combined/

China is such an enigma. It has invested more in renewables than anyone else. Within the last 4 years it has announced that environmental concerns/targets are now of the same importance as economic concerns/targets. The government actually shutdown a ton of manufacturing in 2017 and 2018 over river pollution. And yet we also have its huge reliance on coal and massively expanding CO2 profile. 

[GRHorn 105]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You understand that this is not a requirement that people replace meat with insect-based food, right? This just allows places to include mealworms in food. I would think a libertarian or small government conservative would appreciate a change that allows people the freedom to choose what they want to eat. Frankly, I'm surprised that mealworms weren't allowed previously. For instance, salted and/or chocolate covered crickets are actually quite tasty. I first had them as a kid at the Pecan Street festival.   

Of course. I think it’s fine if you want to eat bugs. The part that I don’t like is who’s promoting it. This isn’t some small opinion outlet. It makes me think there will be a coordinated push to manipulate the food consumption of large amounts of people.