transplantbillsfan

Huh???? We've already gone through our Industrial Revolution... My proposal???? Just what the hell is my proposal???

It's just so bizarre that they think it's a legitimate defense.

The average Chinese citizen is responsible for less than half the emissions the average American citizen is responsible. And none of this is to say that the Chinese shouldn't do something as well, but we aren't in China. The US clearly needs to do much more. Pretty obvious.

What's the point of your post? I'm not a nuclear power expert. Are you? I like nuclear power. But it's also pretty damn scary because of what it can do when things go wrong: Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, etc. My point is that Nuclear power would be the ideal answer if we could ensure preventing accidents like those.

I have a lot to learn??? I'm certainly always trying to learn, but this post was pretty entertaining. No you aren't misreading it, but is it really more commendable to go from utterly all time atrocious to just terrible than to go from relatively okay to bad? US might be improving, but at a snail's pace and, as the United Nations report above states, it's not NEARLY fast enough and we're one of the 7 countries most carelessly putting the rest of the world at risk as far as climate change is concerned.

Since the title of this thread mentions how the Dems are trying to (I guess...?) distract from what will be extremely incriminating evidence coming out in the OIG regarding the 2016 election, I guess this belongs here:

I actually agree with you if we could put more safeguards in place and regulate it very strictly. If I were an absolute Pollyanna, I'd be 100% supportive of nuclear power. If used correctly there would be sooOOOOoooo much power provided to the world with relatively little resources and waste. However, the human factor and skepticism of regulation is what makes me hesitant. In an ideal world where we don't make mistakes, nuclear power is the obvious answer. I just wonder how well we would handle it.

Yes, it will be cheaper. Green energy is getting exponentially cheaper with time; can't copy the chart, but check Figure ES.5 on page 14 to see renewable costs in comparison with Fossil Fuel costs: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30798/EGR19ESEN.pdf?sequence=13 There are these things called battery backups that would probably help there... plus, ya know, wind and sun aren't the only sources of renewable energy

Should probably start with ourselves since the US is by far the most responsible for emissions in the world on a per capita basis:

If Beasley and our passing offense gets shut down tomorrow, I'm going to assume the Dallas coaching staff trolls this message board and read your post and I'm holding you accountable if we lose

True. Heck, even in that excerpt I posted from the article, we learn that Daboll used a running play that lost 3 yards to set up that TD play. I definitely agree there's been an execution problem at points this year. Joe B at one point in one of his All-22s pointed to several plays in a single game where we were targeting Foster on a deep ball but we just couldn't execute for one reason or another. Allen actually hitting that pass was obviously huge. If he didn't hit it, we would have been looking at a 3rd and 13 and I'm sure a lot of us would have then questioned Daboll. So I'll agree that I've probably been too harsh on Daboll. I do think the changes in terms of going up top, running no-huddle and running out of the shotgun much more are great mid-season adjustments.

To be fair, I kinda think there was a huge shift for Daboll and the offense in the last couple of games. In the last 2 games alone in contrast to the rest of the season: -Daboll went into the box for a bird's eye view -The offense began running the no-huddle -"Over the last two weeks, partly due to the no-huddle, the Bills have jumped from 26th in the percentage of runs out of shotgun (16 percent), to the fourth-highest in the league (38 percent)." That last bit was also taken from the article posted in the OP. I was certainly one of the ones you're calling out here because I had issues with Daboll. Love what he did the last couple weeks. I hope he keeps this up and, as Turner indicates in his title, maintains this as the Bills' offensive identity.

Latest breakdown on The Athletic from Erik Turner is interesting because it sets up how the Bills essentially ran the same RPO play throughout the game. Then this: https://theathletic.com/1411252/2019/11/26/have-the-bills-found-their-offensive-identify-dissecting-the-fast-paced-game-plan-against-the-broncos/ The consistent use of this run concept paired with slant — flat and curl — combinations lulled the defense to sleep. The Bills attacked the Broncos with the run and dink, and dunked when they wanted to pass. But the tempo and somewhat simple play design helped the players and staff make easy in-game adjustments. Wide receiver John Brown took notes on Chris Harris throughout the game when he ran these combinations, and that intel led to a touchdown early in the fourth quarter. Daboll told the media that they “had run a similar formation three times, kind of the same route,” Brown “did a good job of communicating to Chad Hall,” and Hall relayed the message to Daboll. Brown told Hall that Harris was “jumping inside, preparing for the slant or curl route,” and you can see that happen on every single play above. So on the Bills’ second drive of the fourth quarter, they set up the deep shot to Brown with a run out of this 4-strong formation. The run lost 3 yards, but it had a significant effect on the next play. The staff “drew something up on there on the sideline off of what John felt out there,” Daboll said afterward. Since Harris was jumping the curls and slants, they threw in a “sluggo” route to push the ball down the field. As Brown glances at Allen, Harris quickly plants to drive on the apparent slant route. Allen executes the play fake, then a series of pump fakes, to get Harris to bite. The six-man protection holds firm and Allen hits Brown for a 34-yard touchdown. It was one of those plays that looked the same to the Broncos, until it didn’t, and it put the Bills up by three possessions. This was also Allen’s first completion over 30 air yards this season — a layup play design to help Allen get his confidence back.

Good point... Here's hopin for snow!

Well by concern you mean what? Concerned about us making the playoffs? I'd put that at about a 2. I'm pretty damn confident we're in the playoffs. Concerned about us being a legit contender and making noise against real teams in the playoffs? I'd put that at about a 5. I'm pretty positive this team fall somewhere between 10-6 and 12-4. If we're 10-6 going into the playoffs, I'm probably at about a 7. If we're 12-4, I'm a 2 and wishing I could muster up money and permission from the wife to travel to the Super Bowl Well by concern you mean what? Concerned about us making the playoffs? I'd put that at about a 2. I'm pretty damn confident we're in the playoffs. Concerned about us being a legit contender and making noise against real teams in the playoffs? I'd put that at about a 5. I'm pretty positive this team fall somewhere between 10-6 and 12-4. If we're 10-6 going into the playoffs, I'm probably at about a 7. If we're 12-4, I'm a 2 and wishing I could muster up money and permission from the wife to travel to the Super Bowl

1. GHG emissions continue to rise, despite scientific warnings and political commitments. ▶ GHG emissions have risen at a rate of 1.5 per cent per year in the last decade, stabilizing only briefly between 2014 and 2016. Total GHG emissions, including from land-use change, reached a record high of 55.3 GtCO2e in 2018. ▶ Fossil CO2 emissions from energy use and industry, which dominate total GHG emissions, grew 2.0 per cent in 2018, reaching a record 37.5 GtCO2 per year. ▶ There is no sign of GHG emissions peaking in the next few years; every year of postponed peaking means that deeper and faster cuts will be required. By 2030, emissions would need to be 25 per cent and 55 per cent lower than in 2018 to put the world on the least-cost pathway to limiting global warming to below 2˚C and 1.5°C respectively Figure ES.2. Top greenhouse gas emitters, excluding land-use change emissions due to lack of reliable country-level data, on an absolute basis (left) and per capita basis (right) 2. G20 members account for 78 per cent of global GHG emissions. Collectively, they are on track to meet their limited 2020 Cancun Pledges, but seven countries are currently not on track to meet 2030 NDC commitments, and for a further three, it is not possible to say. ▶ In contrast, seven G20 members require further action of varying degree to achieve their NDC: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, South Africa and the United States of America. For Brazil, the emissions projections from three annually updated publications were all revised upward, reflecting the recent trend towards increased deforestation, among others. In Japan, however, current policy projections have been close to achieving its NDC target for the last few years. 4. The emissions gap is large. In 2030, annual emissions need to be 15 GtCO2e lower than current unconditional NDCs imply for the 2°C goal, and 32 GtCO2e lower for the 1.5°C goal. ▶ Estimates of where GHG emissions should be in 2030 in order to be consistent with a least-cost pathway towards limiting global warming to the specific temperature goals have been calculated from the scenarios that were compiled as part of the mitigation pathway assessment of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C report. ▶ This report presents an assessment of global emissions pathways relative to those consistent with limiting warming to 2°C, 1.8°C and 1.5°C, in order to provide a clear picture of the pathways that will keep warming in the range of 2°C to 1.5°C. The report also includes an overview of the peak and 2100 temperature outcomes associated with different likelihoods. The inclusion of the 1.8°C level allows for a more nuanced interpretation and discussion of the implication of the Paris Agreement’s temperature targets for near-term emissions. ▶ The emissions gap between estimated total global emissions by 2030 under the NDC scenarios and under pathways limiting warming to below 2°C and 1.5°C is large (see Figure ES.4). Full implementation of the unconditional NDCs is estimated to result in a gap of 15 GtCO2e (range: 12–18 GtCO2e) by 2030, compared with the 2°C scenario. The emissions gap between implementing the unconditional NDCs and the 1.5°C pathway is about 32 GtCO2e (range: 29–35 GtCO2e). 5. Dramatic strengthening of the NDCs is needed in 2020. Countries must increase their NDC ambitions threefold to achieve the well below 2°C goal and more than fivefold to achieve the 1.5°C goal. ▶ The ratchet mechanism of the Paris Agreement foresees strengthening of NDCs every five years. Parties to the Paris Agreement identified 2020 as a critical next step in this process, inviting countries to communicate or update their NDCs by this time. Given the time lag between policy decisions and associated emission reductions, waiting until 2025 to strengthen NDCs will be too late to close the large 2030 emissions gap. ▶ Had serious climate action begun in 2010, the cuts required per year to meet the projected emissions levels for 2°C and 1.5°C would only have been 0.7 per cent and 3.3 per cent per year on average. However, since this did not happen, the required cuts in emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 for the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for the 1.5°C goal. Evidently, greater cuts will be required the longer that action is delayed. 6. Enhanced action by G20 members will be essential for the global mitigation effort. ▶ This report has a particular focus on the G20 members, reflecting on their importance for global mitigation efforts. Chapter 4 in particular focuses on progress and opportunities for enhancing mitigation ambition of seven selected G20 members – Argentina, Brazil, China, the EU, India, Japan and the United States of America – which represented around 56 per cent of global GHG emissions in 2017. The chapter, which was pre-released for the Climate Action Summit, presents a detailed assessment of action or inaction in key sectors, demonstrating that even though there are a few frontrunners, the general picture is rather bleak. ▶ Based on the assessment of mitigation potential in the seven previously mentioned countries, a number of areas have been identified for urgent and impactful action (see table ES.2). The purpose of the recommendations is to show potential, stimulate engagement and facilitate political discussion of what is required to implement the necessary action. Each country will be responsible for designing their own policies and actions. 7. Decarbonizing the global economy will require fundamental structural changes, which should be designed to bring multiple co-benefits for humanity and planetary support systems. ▶ Climate protection and adaptation investments will become a precondition for peace and stability, and will require unprecedented efforts to transform societies, economies, infrastructures and governance institutions. At the same time, deep and rapid decarbonization processes imply fundamental structural changes are needed within economic sectors, firms, labour markets and trade patterns ▶ By necessity, this will see profound change in how energy, food and other material-intensive services are demanded and provided by governments, businesses and markets. These systems of provision are entwined with the preferences, actions and demands of people as consumers, citizens and communities. Deep-rooted shifts in values, norms, consumer culture and world views are inescapably part of the great sustainability transformation. Table ES.2. Selected current opportunities to enhance ambition in seven G20 members in line with ambitious climate actions and targets USA ● Introduce regulations on power plants, clean energy standards and carbon pricing to achieve an electricity supply that is 100 per cent carbon-free ● Implement carbon pricing on industrial emissions ● Strengthen vehicle and fuel economy standards to be in line with zero emissions for new cars in 2030 ● Implement clean building standards so that all new buildings are 100 per cent electrified by 2030 8. Renewables and energy efficiency, in combination with electrification of end uses, are key to a successful energy transition and to driving down energy-related CO2 emissions. ▶ The necessary transition of the global energy sector will require significant investments compared with a business-as-usual scenario. Climate policies that are consistent with the 1.5°C goal will require upscaling energy system supply-side investments to between US$1.6 trillion and US$3.8 trillion per year globally on average over the 2020–2050 time frame, depending on how rapid energy efficiency and conservation efforts can be ramped up. ▶ Any transition at this scale is likely to be extremely challenging and will meet a number of economic, political and technical barriers and challenges. However, many drivers of climate action have changed in the last years, with several options for ambitious climate action becoming less costly, more numerous and better understood. First, technological and economic developments present oppor tunities to decarbonize the economy, especially the energy sector, at a cost that is lower than ever. Second, the synergies between climate action and economic growth and development objectives, including options for addressing distributional impacts, are better understood. Finally, policy momentum across various levels of government, as well as a surge in climate action commitments by non-state actors, are creating opportunities for countries to engage in real transitions. ▶ A key example of technological and economic trends is the cost of renewable energy, which is declining more rapidly than was predicted just a few years ago (see figure ES.5). Renewables are currently the cheapest source of new power generation in most of the world, with the global weighted average purchase or auction price for new utility-scale solar power photovoltaic systems and utility-scale onshore wind turbines projected to compete with the marginal operating cost of existing coal plants by 2020. These trends are increasingly manifesting in a decline in new coal plant construction, including the cancellation of planned plants, as well as the early retirement of existing plants. Moreover, real-life cost declines are outpacing projections.

Did McDermott say it was a hammy? I figured it wasn't a cramp. Aren't you much more prone to getting those in the heat rather than the cold?

Wait... Foster is actually practicing? Sooooo... not a hammy???

Updated after week 12's completion

Isn't that just it? Blitz him and try to pressure him into making an errant throw while also hopefully sacking him and hitting him enough to make him a little shaky.

So what's the best way to beat Jackson and this Ravens offense? Zero blitz and press coverage the whole game? Run blitz every play with press coverage? Edmunds or Milano as a spy? Serious question because obviously there will be way to stop this team at some point.