GG Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 21 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: 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. That’s because Canada doesn’t produce things on the same level as the US. It’s not a hard concept. Industrial output produces emissions. Where’s your graph that shows emissions per capital relative to industrial production? You’d learn that US is much more efficient than the rest of the world. The UN admonitions are garbage. If they want to achieve their goal to reduce US emissions to zero, who is going to deal with the famines and wars that would result from throwing the US economy in the tank? You haven’t really though through the real ramifications of all these junk science proposals, have you? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: We aren't the largest contributors, China and India are. And they're going through an Industrial Revolution. As the global economy grows, and other nations will as well, they'll use the cheapest energy sources to do so. No, China is, then the US, then India... and the US has like 20% the population of each one of those countries. And you're right... as those economies grow, they'll go to the cheapest energy sources, which is quickly turning out to be green energy. The United States already has the electrical infrastructure set up relying primarily on the Fossil Fuel industry, which also has its fingers in Washington's cookie jar, making it so politically difficult to shift off fossil fuels even though we should and it really would be cheaper long term to do so with more haste. 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You latched onto another posters ideals. If you have a different idea, state it. As an aside, we're already the global leader in pollution and emissions reduction. Which posters ideals? Are you talking about my comments on Nuclear power? Did you notice all my caveats? As an aside, we're still the global leader in emissions per capita and are 2nd worst overall in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: No, China is, then the US, then India... and the US has like 20% the population of each one of those countries. And you're right... as those economies grow, they'll go to the cheapest energy sources, which is quickly turning out to be green energy. The United States already has the electrical infrastructure set up relying primarily on the Fossil Fuel industry, which also has its fingers in Washington's cookie jar, making it so politically difficult to shift off fossil fuels even though we should and it really would be cheaper long term to do so with more haste. Which posters ideals? Are you talking about my comments on Nuclear power? Did you notice all my caveats? As an aside, we're still the global leader in emissions per capita and are 2nd worst overall in the world. India will shortly surpass us as they pull their people out of poverty through industrialization. I'm not interested in per capita. Per capita doesn't solve the problem. And, as I said, 4 billion people are following behind. And no, green energy is not the cheapest. If it were, it would be being used, especially in the emerging economies. Stop pumping voodoo. Solve China. Solve India. Solve the nations who naturally follow. 8 billion people seeking prosperity. Go. 16 minutes ago, GG said: That’s because Canada doesn’t produce things on the same level as the US. It’s not a hard concept. Industrial output produces emissions. Where’s your graph that shows emissions per capital relative to industrial production? You’d learn that US is much more efficient than the rest of the world. The UN admonitions are garbage. If they want to achieve their goal to reduce US emissions to zero, who is going to deal with the famines and wars that would result from throwing the US economy in the tank? You haven’t really though through the real ramifications of all these junk science proposals, have you? No, he hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: India will shortly surpass us as they pull their people out of poverty through industrialization. I'm not interested in per capita. Per capita doesn't solve the problem. And, as I said, 4 billion people are following behind. And no, green energy is not the cheapest. If it were, it would be being used, especially in the emerging economies. Stop pumping voodoo. Solve China. Solve India. Solve the nations who naturally follow. 8 billion people seeking prosperity. Go. Fine, don't be interested in per capita. The US, not India, is the 2nd worst contributor to emissions worldwide. Start solving the problem where you're able to. The US can and should be doing something. You guys need to stop deflecting. You're like a pack of guilty kids on the playground who all got into a fight and are pointing at the other guy who started it when you're all part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Fine, don't be interested in per capita. The US, not India, is the 2nd worst contributor to emissions worldwide. Start solving the problem where you're able to. The US can and should be doing something. You guys need to stop deflecting. You're like a pack of guilty kids on the playground who all got into a fight and are pointing at the other guy who started it when you're all part of the problem. No, you need to stop ignoring the economic consequences. What percentage of the US and global population are you willing to plunge into poverty and starve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, you need to stop ignoring the economic consequences. What percentage of the US and global population are you willing to plunge into poverty and starve? Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, amirite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 13 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Fine, don't be interested in per capita. The US, not India, is the 2nd worst contributor to emissions worldwide. Start solving the problem where you're able to. The US can and should be doing something. You guys need to stop deflecting. You're like a pack of guilty kids on the playground who all got into a fight and are pointing at the other guy who started it when you're all part of the problem. I've been waiting for years for someone to suggest what that something might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 8 hours ago, Tiberius said: No drilling, refining, transportation costs are enormous, won’t have to station troops in Saudi Arabia. The wind and sun are free What is the annual maintenance and replacement cost for solar and wind? Free. ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: 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. Do you ever happen to know what you're talking about just by pure accident? As the blindest of squirrels one day you'll hopefully find your nut too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123719bwiqrb Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chef Jim said: What is the annual maintenance and replacement cost for solar and wind? Free. ? It is important to point this out all the time to Greenies. Free is what all the Greenies think. But unfortunately for them, Carnot's Cycle never loses. Ask the dummies in charge of maintaining the defunct windmills in Lackawanna how much it costs to keep them spinning. They thought they would run for free forever, and lookie what happened. They all stopped spinning. Huh, who would have thought. Now they need more taxpayer money to "rehab" them. Buttholes. Edited November 28, 2019 by ScotSHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: 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 a ridiculous answer. The US needs to do "more".......gee, I guess we should start doing "something"! As the number demonstrate, the US is doing "more". It's a big ship that turns slowly, but nitwits need something to whine about right now, huh? Meanwhile, grown ups working in serious industries on serious issues are the ones who are making the difference. Obviously that's all a mystery to you. And thanks for your typical ***** answer on China....after completely letting them off the hook you toss in that limp wristed qualifier. And please, let me know when you quantify how much more the average Chinese citizen PRODUCES verses the average American. Do you think it's a lot less than half? I sure do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 5 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The same argument is often made about Jeffrey Dahmer. He was a small town kid, so his murder rate per capita made him a relatively good neighbor in contrast to your David Berkowitz(s) or a Wayne Williams. Don't forget that Dahmer didn't let body parts go to waste. He was a true steward of the environment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakin Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 How can anyone say ‘green energy’ is the cheapest? This is completely false. Solar and wind are totally inefficient and thus, cost prohibitive. Nuclear power is the cheapest and most efficient. Greenies hate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 3 hours ago, Chef Jim said: What is the annual maintenance and replacement cost for solar and wind? Free. ? The level of sheer ignorance required to be a liberal is unimaginable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 3 hours ago, Chef Jim said: What is the annual maintenance and replacement cost for solar and wind? Free. ? Of course not free, but at least the money doesn't end up in the hands of capitalists... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 6 hours ago, DC Tom said: Of course not free, but at least the money doesn't end up in the hands of capitalists... Good point. It ends up in the hands of the good ole wind and sun farmers. And think of all the jobs for the poor immigrants harvesting the sun and wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 9 hours ago, Bakin said: How can anyone say ‘green energy’ is the cheapest? This is completely false. Solar and wind are totally inefficient and thus, cost prohibitive. Nuclear power is the cheapest and most efficient. Greenies hate that. waste caused by each method is to be considered, i don't see it honestly displayed by green activists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 10 hours ago, ScotSHO said: It is important to point this out all the time to Greenies. Free is what all the Greenies think. But unfortunately for them, Carnot's Cycle never loses. Ask the dummies in charge of maintaining the defunct windmills in Lackawanna how much it costs to keep them spinning. They thought they would run for free forever, and lookie what happened. They all stopped spinning. Huh, who would have thought. Now they need more taxpayer money to "rehab" them. Buttholes. Oh please, how much does a super tanker cost? Or rail cars to haul coal? Or pipe lines. Fossil fuels costs so so much more than replacing a turbine or power line. And we won’t have to fight wars to protect our energy source. What is is the cost of global warming? Ask the insurance companies. Economically, green energy can’t be beat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 9 minutes ago, Tiberius said: there is a severe dichotomy here between your desires to move away from fossil fuels and the corruption of the elitist. until there can be graft and a revenue stream incorporated into the fields of new sources of energy production for the elite few, it. is. never. going. to happen. period. secondly, it is never going to pivot on a dime. changing direction for a behemoth as large as the energy sector is required a wide berth. if indeed we have only a decade left, you might as well enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakin Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 12 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Oh please, how much does a super tanker cost? Or rail cars to haul coal? Or pipe lines. Fossil fuels costs so so much more than replacing a turbine or power line. And we won’t have to fight wars to protect our energy source. What is is the cost of global warming? Ask the insurance companies. Economically, green energy can’t be beat Ask the insurance companies? Why? That’s silly. Insurance companies are the scum of the earth. There is no ‘cost of global warming’. The Earth has been warming for tens of thousands of years and no insurance will ‘protect’ against something as benign as that. A warming world is a GOOD thing. People live longer, the world gets more green, food production rises. We WANT the world to warm. unfortunately we have no control over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts