Bernie Sanders releases a REAL Climate Change Plan

[glenn1]

So are you totally uniformed about what byproducts result from coal combustion and are emitted from plants without modern emission controls or do you just not care? My suspicion is that it's the latter.

If you want to talk about the negative externalities resulting from globalized commerce that includes less developed countries feel free to start another thread.

Yeah, those developing world inhabitants should just live miserable and die in their 20s so as to avoid using any fossil fuels and inconveniencing climate change believers.

"The 3rd world peasants are unhappy because they have no energy which to make their bread."

"Then let them eat solar panels."

 

[TheGardener]

Beef isn't so much the problem as much as factory farming.

Well you conveniently switch sides when it comes to protecting your burgers and steaks. There is no way that 7.5 billion people, or how ever many people wanting to eat beef, are going to be fed on grass grazed, non-caged and open prairie farms. Besides emissions are emissions. Think CO2 baby!

Globally, 14.5% of all greenhouse gas pollution can be attributed to livestock, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the most reputable authority on this topic. And a huge hunk of the livestock industry's role -- 65% -- comes from raising beef and dairy cattle.

It will be hard to meet the 2-degree goal no matter what; it will be impossible if livestock pollution isn't part of the mix, said Doug Boucher, a PhD ecologist and evolutionary biologist who is director of climate research and analysis at the Union of Concerned Scientists

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/29/opinions/sutter-beef-suv-cliamte-two-degrees/index.html

Some people, not you, are saying that meat eating causes as much CO2 pollution as petroleum production. Forget the issues of nuclear power plants. Nuke the cows, chickens, turkeys and pigs.

Sounds like the oceans are going to boil over, unless deniers like you, accept eating twigs, tofu and berries. Get on the bandwagon and do your part. No more bacon, sausages, hot dogs, burgers, ribs and steak. Given your concern about the acidification of the oceans, you must not eat salmon, tuna, cod, etc, etc.

Of course some people (the 1% like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio) will be able to afford buying carbon credits, so they can continue to eat beef and fly in carbon inefficient private jets. But it is only for the good of spreading the word of climate change, that they are doing so. It is because of this, that we don't hate them for being part of the despised 1%.

 

[Moonbeam]

The US nuclear technology is ancient, because we can't build new plants. You should read up on molten salt reactors. This could be a game changer, alongside the green technologies of course.

You should study human nature. You might want to check out morality. I'm up on the so called safe designs and the ones that burn waste. Ordinary people will oppose creating and concentrating poisons that can kill their descendents for thousands of years. The majority wants to force the people of Nevada to swallow their shit. Nobody wants to live along the transportation routs. Kids don't want their parents to work around nuclear materials. The time to do nuclear is when all of the nuclear waste we have already created has been safely stored under the nations capital. The human race will always oppose nuclear and welcome renewables. It's where the brains and the money and the focus should be going.

 

[norseamd]

 

[K1052]

Yeah, those developing world inhabitants should just live miserable and die in their 20s so as to avoid using any fossil fuels and inconveniencing climate change believers.

"The 3rd world peasants are unhappy because they have no energy which to make their bread."

"Then let them eat solar panels."

In nations that lack paved roads and clean drinking water, let alone a centralized grid, local solar is in fact the best and most cost effective option.

 

[glenn1]

In nations that lack paved roads and clean drinking water, let alone a centralized grid, local solar is in fact the best and most cost effective option.

Very simple for you to say it's the "best and most cost effective option" if you don't bother to specify what problem the solution is solving and don't need to calculate those numbers. Absent that context and other important inputs (upfront capital costs, operating costs, etc.) I could just as easily say that solar is far from the "best and most cost effective solution" for the need and be just as correct.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The children of the future thank you also from the bottom of their misery. In your mind, when it comes to climate change, you are one of the smartest people alive. That, not children, is what counts.

It has to be horribly uncomfortable for you to constantly have that stick in your ass. Lighten up Francis.

 

[Paratus]

Very simple for you to say it's the "best and most cost effective option" if you don't bother to specify what problem the solution is solving and don't need to calculate those numbers. Absent that context and other important inputs (upfront capital costs, operating costs, etc.) I could just as easily say that solar is far from the "best and most cost effective solution" for the need and be just as correct.

Damn Glenn do some research.

This article is three years old already:

http://www.technologyreview.com/new...ing-world-solar-is-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels/

ENERGY NEWS 27 COMMENTS
In the Developing World, Solar Is Cheaper than Fossil Fuels
Advances are opening solar to the 1.3 billion people who don’t have access to grid electricity.

By Kevin Bullis on January 27, 2012

The falling cost of LED lighting, batteries, and solar panels, together with innovative business plans, are allowing millions of households in Africa and elsewhere to switch from crude kerosene lamps to cleaner and safer electric lighting. For many, this offers a means to charge their mobile phones, which are becoming ubiquitous in Africa, instead of having to rent a charger.

Technology advances are opening up a huge new market for solar power: the approximately 1.3 billion people around the world who don’t have access to grid electricity. Even though they are typically very poor, these people have to pay far more for lighting than people in rich countries because they use inefficient kerosene lamps. While in most parts of the world solar power typically costs far more than electricity from conventional power plants—especially when including battery costs—for some people, solar power makes economic sense because it costs half as much as lighting with kerosene.

 

[K1052]

Very simple for you to say it's the "best and most cost effective option" if you don't bother to specify what problem the solution is solving and don't need to calculate those numbers. Absent that context and other important inputs (upfront capital costs, operating costs, etc.) I could just as easily say that solar is far from the "best and most cost effective solution" for the need and be just as correct.

All your "inputs" are lower for solar than any traditional fossil fuel source for the 3rd world outside major cities which have some amount of infrastructure and transportation links. I'm not going to bother educating someone who isn't actually interested in this.

Edit: I see Paratus has posted some relevant info. I know you'll just ignore it though.

 

[glenn1]

Damn Glenn do some research.

This article is three years old already:

http://www.technologyreview.com/new...ing-world-solar-is-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels/

Again it depends on your use case. You can't universally say that because without specifying your requirements you can't possibly tell if it's true. For example if you're operating a water pump it might not matter if it's cloudy and you need to wait for your water; whereas if you're managing a hospital then having an unreliable source of baseline power isn't an option since you can't just say mid-surgery "don't worry, we'll just wait until it's sunnier and continue then."

Even if you go from the perspective of "they're just 3rd world poor, beggars can't be choosers" do you think First World consumers would be OK with the trade-offs involved or 3rd world levels of service (3 hours electricity a day)? Hell, most people get annoyed if their electricity goes out for a few seconds.

 

[K1052]

Again it depends on your use case. You can't universally say that because without specifying your requirements you can't possibly tell if it's true. For example if you're operating a water pump it might not matter if it's cloudy and you need to wait for your water; whereas if you're managing a hospital then having an unreliable source of baseline power isn't an option since you can't just say mid-surgery "don't worry, we'll just wait until it's sunnier and continue then."

Even if you go from the perspective of "they're just 3rd world poor, beggars can't be choosers" do you think First World consumers would be OK with the trade-offs involved or 3rd world levels of service (3 hours electricity a day)? Hell, most people get annoyed if their electricity goes out for a few seconds.

The goalposts. They be moving.

 

[glenn1]

The goalposts. They be moving.

Why are they moving? For some applications solar is cheaper and sometimes by far - calculators, home water heaters, attic fans, etc. For others solar isn't a realistic option for reasons I already outlined and many others. Trying to shoehorn solar into every application would only increase costs since you'd still need a fossil fuel powered backup power source. Is this really difficult material for you to understand?

 

[boomerang]

Climate zealots have forced unreliable means of power upon the third world. While the developed world has people flying off to climate summits to come up with comprehensive plans that waste everyone's time, effort and mostly money, people in third world nations are burning dung for heat or an old tire if they can manage to lay their hands on one. Progressives hold back the rest of the world so that they may enjoy their lifestyles all while making noises about how wonderful unreliable, alternative forms of energy are doing so much good for the rest. It makes them feel very, very good about themselves. No power grid for you! No coal, no natural gas, no oil. No, no, no, this stuff right here will suit your needs just fine.

Evil - personified.

 

[K1052]

Why are they moving? For some applications solar is cheaper and sometimes by far - calculators, home water heaters, attic fans, etc. For others solar isn't a realistic option for reasons I already outlined and many others. Trying to shoehorn solar into every application would only increase costs since you'd still need a fossil fuel powered backup power source. Is this really difficult material for you to understand?

I qualified my statements. Your scenarios are not precluded from what I've said yet you continue to post like they aren't. Reliance on first world centralized solutions for the developing world is a fool's errand. Adoption of cellular technology in the third world is a great example of what we're talking about.

 

[glenn1]

I qualified my statements. Your scenarios are not precluded from what I've said yet you continue to post like they aren't. Reliance on first world centralized solutions for the developing world is a fool's errand. Adoption of cellular technology in the third world is a great example of what we're talking about.

Yeah, but the first world also didn't pay new taxes to provide cellular phone infrastructure to the 3rd world. In your world, you would have 'solved' the problem of all the resources and carbon production involved in providing landline telephone service via a new tax meant to cover the externalities of it (e.g. overhead phone lines, copper mining byproducts to produce the wires, etc.) and get consumers to reduce their usage. And in so doing you would likely have never allowed cell phone technology to develop as a superior solution that would replace landline. That's the point I'm trying to make - you don't obsolete an 'undesirable' technology by increasing its costs or trying to force users to adopt alternative means that don't work as well (e.g. telling them to just use telegraph or semaphore to communicate instead of landline phones).

 

[K1052]

Yeah, but the first world also didn't pay new taxes to provide cellular phone infrastructure to the 3rd world. In your world, you would have 'solved' the problem of all the resources and carbon production involved in providing landline telephone service via a new tax meant to cover the externalities of it (e.g. overhead phone lines, copper mining byproducts to produce the wires, etc.) and get consumers to reduce their usage. And in so doing you would likely have never allowed cell phone technology to develop as a superior solution that would replace landline. That's the point I'm trying to make - you don't obsolete an 'undesirable' technology by increasing its costs or trying to force users to adopt alternative means that don't work as well (e.g. telling them to just use telegraph or semaphore to communicate instead of landline phones).

Now you're just fabricationg arguments that I haven't made.

 

[Accord99]

I qualified my statements. Your scenarios are not precluded from what I've said yet you continue to post like they aren't. Reliance on first world centralized solutions for the developing world is a fool's errand. Adoption of cellular technology in the third world is a great example of what we're talking about.

Removing wires doesn't make cellular lines decentralized forms of communication. Users are still dependent on towers operated by a third-party who collect fees for access. Plus these countries will still need to wire up households for fast Internet.

The third world won't develop until they are capable of developing the centralized infrastructure in the first world for energy, clean water and communication and provide the cheap reliable energy needed by business and industry. Centralized solutions are simply far more scalable, cost effective in resources and land and far more reliable.

 

[fskimospy]

Climate zealots have forced unreliable means of power upon the third world. While the developed world has people flying off to climate summits to come up with comprehensive plans that waste everyone's time, effort and mostly money, people in third world nations are burning dung for heat or an old tire if they can manage to lay their hands on one. Progressives hold back the rest of the world so that they may enjoy their lifestyles all while making noises about how wonderful unreliable, alternative forms of energy are doing so much good for the rest. It makes them feel very, very good about themselves. No power grid for you! No coal, no natural gas, no oil. No, no, no, this stuff right here will suit your needs just fine.

Evil - personified.

This post is stupidity personified. Why do you hold such a strong opinion about a topic you clearly have little to zero knowledge of?

Does that sound like a rational thing to do?

 

[Moonbeam]

This post is stupidity personified. Why do you hold such a strong opinion about a topic you clearly have little to zero knowledge of?

Does that sound like a rational thing to do?

The notion that there are climate zealots under his bed has rattled his Amygdala. The poor soul has a debilitating brain defect that basically manifests as hysteria.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/24/myths-and-facts-about-solar-energy/192364

Noticehow Fox News and the conservative brain dead are consistently on the wrong side of the issue.

 

[momeNt]

What is a RECOR? D:
hahaha

I didnt read any of that I just saw that face and laughed.

 

[zinfamous]

Please explain in detail how raising 1,000,000 head of cattle on small family farms has a different environmental impact than raising 1,000,000 cattle on "factory" farms.

Because there obviously wouldn't be 1,000,000 heads of cattle throughout small family farms.

The obvious and clearly intentional trade-off for such a model is to vastly reduce the number of cattle processed. Not saying that is the perfect, or feasible solution, but it is the intent.


As to Bernie...no nuclear?

wtf, man?

 

[BoberFett]

Because there obviously wouldn't be 1,000,000 heads of cattle throughout small family farms.

The obvious and clearly intentional trade-off for such a model is to vastly reduce the number of cattle processed. Not saying that is the perfect, or feasible solution, but it is the intent.

Please try reading.

Beef isn't so much the problem as much as factory farming.

He said beef consumption isn't the problem. He's not advocating lower total beef consumption, he's just talking about getting rid of "factory farms" as if they're some kind of inherent evil, and that somehow by having a bunch of hippies raise cattle instead of evil corporate overlords that somehow the environmental impact will be reduced.

"Responsible" farming would have a massive environmental impact if we tried to feed the world's population that way. Science and "factory farms" provide vastly more food per acre than traditional farming. You may disagree with the methods or ethics, but the increased food output can't be denied.

The person I was responding to isn't thinking logically, he's spouting talking points and repeating jargon.

 

[Moonbeam]

As to Bernie...no nuclear?

wtf, man?

He's a lot more aware of reality than you are. We will have massive installations of nuclear power plants almost the second that rich people start screaming to have them in their back yards.

 

[shady28]

Looks like a bubble market to me :