Where can the left and right agree--Energy

[homersapien 11,373]

21 hours ago, autigeremt said:

By their ideological (not educated) decisions to push the country to the brink of collapse as a mechanism to usher in their form of the future. A lot of the climate policy has holes in it and the first one is by ignoring that forcing people to go in their direction will only hurt the least among us the most. A great energy policy must be phased in through cause and effect not by pulling dates out of the air and forcing it down our throats. I have sat in on countless Sierra Club, Climate Initiative and water conservation conferences and the talk is universal. Force it or else. 

A great energy policy must be phased in by cause and effect????  That's like saying stopping smoking must be phased in after a diagnosis of cancer.

I don't see how you can seriously believe environmental organizations have pushed the country to the "brink of collapse" when the exact opposite is true. 

And it's not like we followed their (scientifically-based) advice!  Just the opposite.

It should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention that we have been totally inadequate in addressing the threat which is now upon us.  It's no longer 50 or even 30 years off.  It's now.  Even Biden's plan uses 2050 as the time goal for achieving net zero emissions.  I seriously doubt we will make that. (Certainly not if we endure a couple of more Republican administrations.)

The Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal is to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), recognizing that this would substantially reduce the effects of climate change. 

Mark my words, we won't make it.  (BTW, this is the accord that Trump pulled us out of.)

So as far as climate advocacy groups "pushing us to the brink" by moving too fast, we are now approaching the brink because we have moved too slow. They were right all along.  Had we been more aggressive and taken their advice, we would be in a far better position today.  We are rapidly approaching the point of no return regarding the Paris Climate Accord goals - if we haven't already passed it.  And there's no reversing it. 

But you're right about one thing, "force it" or else.  We are on the verge of experiencing the "else" exactly because we haven't been aggressive enough. We should have started aggressively transitioning away from fossil fuels decades ago. We (at least science) knew this was coming.  It may now be far too late.

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

36 minutes ago, homersapien said:

A great energy policy must be phased in by cause and effect????  That's like saying stopping smoking must be phased in after a diagnosis of cancer.

I don't see how you can seriously believe environmental organizations have pushed the country to the "brink of collapse" when the exact opposite is true. 

And it's not like we followed their (scientifically-based) advice!  Just the opposite.

It should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention that we have been totally inadequate in addressing the threat which is now upon us.  It's no longer 50 or even 30 years off.  It's now.  Even Biden's plan uses 2050 as the time goal for achieving net zero emissions.  I seriously doubt we will make that. (Certainly not if we endure a couple of more Republican administrations.)

The Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal is to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), recognizing that this would substantially reduce the effects of climate change. 

Mark my words, we won't make it.  (BTW, this is the accord that Trump pulled us out of.)

So as far as climate advocacy groups "pushing us to the brink" by moving to fast, we are now approaching to brink because we have moved too slow. They were right all along.  Had we been more aggressive and taken their advice, we would be in a far better position today.  We are rapidly approaching the point of no return regarding the Paris Climate Accord goals - if we haven't already passed it.  And there's no reversing it. 

But you're right about one thing, "force it" or else.  We are on the verge of experiencing the "else" exactly because we haven't been aggressive enough. We should have started aggressively transitioning away from fossil fuels decades ago. We (at least science) knew this was coming.  It may now be far too late.

 

Yeah cause once America achieves net zero it will save the planet. China and India say hello BTW. I am not saying do nothing, but why would we want to enact policies that put the US in a disadvantage to others, while lessening the chance we can have to innovate ways to help China and India and other third world countries that are polluting way worse than us and essentially 50-75 years behind on technology. 

What you want to do is try to jump to "clean" energy as soon as we can without regard to the impact it will have on the people of the US. And frankly won't make much of a damn difference when other countries do what they want.  

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Yeah cause once America achieves net zero it will save the planet. China and India say hello BTW. I am not saying do nothing, but why would we want to enact policies that put the US in a disadvantage to others, while lessening the chance we can have to innovate ways to help China and India and other third world countries that are polluting way worse than us and essentially 50-75 years behind on technology. 

What you want to do is try to jump to "clean" energy as soon as we can without regard to the impact it will have on the people of the US. And frankly won't make much of a damn difference when other countries do what they want.  

In other words, America is no longer the (democratic) leader of the globe.

Let China and India take the lead.  After all - for better or worse - it's their century. 

Our time has passed.

 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

In other words, America is no longer the (democratic) leader of the globe.

Let China and India take the lead.  After all - for better or worse - it's their century. 

Our time has passed.

 

Missing the point, as usual.

If those of you who are insisting that our energy needs can and must be resolved unilaterally in a "geological overnight" (my term) because we have an existential crisis on our hands are really serious about this, then you'd be screaming to the rafters that China and India help us pull in the same direction.

But as a collective, you're not. The collective you would rather see the U.S. hamstring itself to try and artificially pump up its ESG profile (that worked out well for Sri Lanka and Ghana...😐).

"Mother Nature dissents", I believe was the title of a thread I saw recently.

Mother Nature needs to brush up on her Hindi and Mandarin and then get back to us.

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

Missing the point, as usual.

If those of you who are insisting that our energy needs can and must be resolved unilaterally in a "geological overnight" (my term) because we have an existential crisis on our hands are really serious about this, then you'd be screaming to the rafters that China and India help us pull in the same direction.

But as a collective, you're not. The collective you would rather see the U.S. hamstring itself to try and artificially pump up its ESG profile (that worked out well for Sri Lanka and Ghana...😐).

"Mother Nature dissents", I believe was the title of a thread I saw recently.

Mother Nature needs to brush up on her Hindi and Mandarin and then get back to us.

China and India are already "pulling in the right direction", in a much more aggressive way than we are:

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/a-new-era-of-shared-clean-energy-leadership-begins-in-china

A new era of shared clean energy leadership begins in China There is a new reality in clean energy.

The world’s major emerging economies – including China, India, and several others – are moving to the center stage of the clean energy transition. By betting heavily on energy efficiency, on wind, solar and other renewables, as well as other less carbon-intensive technologies, these countries are increasingly leading the way.....

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/india-investment-renewables-green-energy/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/renewables-are-the-key-to-green-secure-affordable-energy

https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2021/11/3/india-solar-renewable-energy-electricity-climate-crisis

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/07/09/india-s-solar-learning-curve-inspires-action-across-the-world

I could go on.....

 

And here's a graphical perspective regarding  collective responsibility on a total population and per capita basis:

Of the total 2,450 billion tonnes of carbon released since 1 ..
 

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/88156781.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Of the total 2,450 billion tonnes of carbon released since 1 ..
 

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/88156781.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

Bottom line, the idea that we should be less aggressive in efforts to transition away from fossil fuels because of a perceived lack of effort by China and India just doesn't hold water.  It's self-centered and self-defeating.

The fact is, we are actually falling behind the rest of the world in doing what has to be done.

As a result, we are going to wind up buying their technology instead of developing and marketing our own. 

I think it is you who is "missing the point" (as usual )

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,053]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

China and India are already "pulling in the right direction", in a much more aggressive way than we are:

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/a-new-era-of-shared-clean-energy-leadership-begins-in-china

A new era of shared clean energy leadership begins in China There is a new reality in clean energy.

The world’s major emerging economies – including China, India, and several others – are moving to the center stage of the clean energy transition. By betting heavily on energy efficiency, on wind, solar and other renewables, as well as other less carbon-intensive technologies, these countries are increasingly leading the way.....

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/india-investment-renewables-green-energy/

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/renewables-are-the-key-to-green-secure-affordable-energy

https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2021/11/3/india-solar-renewable-energy-electricity-climate-crisis

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/07/09/india-s-solar-learning-curve-inspires-action-across-the-world

I could go on.....

 

And here's a graphical perspective regarding  collective responsibility on a total population and per capita basis:

Of the total 2,450 billion tonnes of carbon released since 1 ..
 

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/88156781.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Of the total 2,450 billion tonnes of carbon released since 1 ..
 

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/88156781.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

Bottom line, the idea that we should be less aggressive in efforts to transition away from fossil fuels because of a perceived lack of effort by China and India just doesn't hold water.  It's self-centered and self-defeating.

The fact is, we are actually falling behind the rest of the world in doing what has to be done.

As a result, we are going to wind up buying their technology instead of developing and marketing our own. 

 

I’ve been to China many times. In many areas you cannot see the sky at all. All day. Shanghai HK Shenzhen Guangzhou, Beijing all have atrocious air pollution. Their rivers are full of chemicals and garbage. Safe drinking water is hard to find. If they are leading this charge, it is not apparent. Their low per capita number exists only because they have an extra billion or two people living in squalor by which to divide their CO2 output.  

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

17 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I’ve been to China many times. In many areas you cannot see the sky at all. All day. Shanghai HK Shenzhen Guangzhou, Beijing all have atrocious air pollution. Their rivers are full of chemicals and garbage. Safe drinking water is hard to find. If they are leading this charge, it is not apparent. Their low per capita number exists only because they have an extra billion or two people living in squalor by which to divide their CO2 output.  

China is, by far, the worst polluter of CO2 emissions:

Top 10 polluters

However, most of this pollution comes from just a few countries: China, for example, generates around 30% of all global emissions, while the United States is responsible for almost 14%.In the ranking below you can find the 10 countries that produce the most emissions, measured in millions of tons of CO2 in 2019.

China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.

United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2

India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2

Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2

Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2

Germany, 759 million tons of CO2

Iran, 720 million tons of CO2

South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2

Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2

Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2

https://climatetrade.com/which-countries-are-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-polluters/#

What Homer found must have been produced by the CCCP as who cares what the CO2 emissions per-capital is, unless of course it makes you look a lot better.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

22 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I’ve been to China many times. In many areas you cannot see the sky at all. All day. Shanghai HK Shenzhen Guangzhou, Beijing all have atrocious air pollution. Their rivers are full of chemicals and garbage. Safe drinking water is hard to find. If they are leading this charge, it is not apparent. Their low per capita number exists only because they have an extra billion or two people living in squalor by which to divide their CO2 output.  

Doing most of our manufacturing?

[Leftfield 2,601]

13 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I’ve been to China many times. In many areas you cannot see the sky at all. All day. Shanghai HK Shenzhen Guangzhou, Beijing all have atrocious air pollution. Their rivers are full of chemicals and garbage. Safe drinking water is hard to find. If they are leading this charge, it is not apparent. Their low per capita number exists only because they have an extra billion or two people living in squalor by which to divide their CO2 output.  

Have you ever thought that China might be pouring resources into clean energy precisely to combat what you saw? The degree of pollution there because of short-sightedness and rapid growth and development is exactly what's spurring them to develop alternative energies quickly. And as homer said, if they are successful at mass-producing these technologies before us, they are likely to reap the benefits when other countries buy it from them. 

I'm sorry, but your comment is just mind-numbingly stupid. Just because there is widespread pollution in China does not mean it will always be that way. Why would you think a society is incapable of learning from past mista.....oh, right.....Trump supporter.

 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

Renewables are not the key to AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE and AVAILABLE energy. Look at what is happening to Germany and Australia after going full throttle on ending fossil fuel way too early. 

Wind and solar will never be sufficient to supply the energy needs now or when millions of vehicles (personal, industrial, emergency, etc...) go electric.  Wind and solar cannot even provide the energy to supply the concrete, steel, lithium, etc...it would take to replace the solar arrays and wind turbines in the field when they fail...and they will.  

The only path forward after ending fossil fuel usage is nuclear energy. 

Edited July 27, 2022 by johnnyAU
sentence structure

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

China is, by far, the worst polluter of CO2 emissions:

Top 10 polluters

However, most of this pollution comes from just a few countries: China, for example, generates around 30% of all global emissions, while the United States is responsible for almost 14%.In the ranking below you can find the 10 countries that produce the most emissions, measured in millions of tons of CO2 in 2019.

China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.

United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2

India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2

Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2

Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2

Germany, 759 million tons of CO2

Iran, 720 million tons of CO2

South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2

Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2

Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2

https://climatetrade.com/which-countries-are-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-polluters/#

What Homer found must have been produced by the CCCP as who cares what the CO2 emissions per-capital is, unless of course it makes you look a lot better.

But this discussion is not about where most greenhouse emissions are coming from.  That's obvious.  They are coming from the most populous and developed countries in the world.

This discussion is about the relative level of commitment to address AGW that two of those countries - China and India - possess compared to the U.S.

But first, let me try (again) to explain the significance of using emissions per capita to examine that question:

Anyone with a logical mind who wants to make a fair (equivalent) comparison between two countries always uses per capita (or more generally, per "unit" data).  "Productivity" comparisons provide a good example. If you want to compare the efficiency of growing wheat between two countries, you don't compare their total wheat production, you compare bushels of wheat per acre.

Per capita is probably the most common way to compare performance or productivity of a country for most criteria. This is a political discussion regarding the commitment of other large countries in reducing emissions to the U.S. commitment of doing same.

Now, anyone with a logical mind would assume that a country as large as China or India with such a large percentages of the world's population would naturally account for a large percentages of the world's greenhouse gas emissions - certainly more than any given smaller country. (Duuuuuuh!)

But of course, the number of people in a given country has nothing to do with the relative efficiency of effort, technologies or policies - in other words commitment - that are being employed by that country for the task.

China and India have been criticized, or otherwise compared (to us) for the purpose of illustrating they are much "worse" than us in their commitment to control AGW gases solely based on the absolute amount of these gases they emit. But that may only be because they have many, many more people. 

It could be they are making a more effective or serious effort to control emissions than we are and the absolute difference is simply due to their much larger population. 

All countries differ in size and population so simple absolute values per country says nothing about the relative efficiency, effectiveness or commitment of each country in controlling emissions. 

On the other hand, the larger per capita emissions of the U.S. does suggest that we are either doing a worse job in our commitment and/or we insist on maintaining  a less efficient lifestyle on average than the rest of the world, which is also a function of commitment.

Anyway, to make a direct comparison of (AGW) commitment between our country and another you have to look directly at policies/investment/efforts. (And ultimately these investments also need to be compared on a per capita basis in order to directly compare one country to another.)

All of this means one cannot simply point at China and India as examples of countries that don't care or have no intention of reducing emissions simplly based on their absolute level of emissions.   (This comes up frequently in these AGW debates and it's faulty logic.)  It's not that simple. You have to factor in population.

Granted, one can argue that relative progress in China and India is more important than progress is in the U.S. because of the absolute values of emissions from each country but one cannot argue China and India care less (or are less effective) than we are on that basis.

To compare effectiveness, you have to use per capita data.  And for whatever reason China is currently operating more efficiently than the U.S. on a per capita basis.

Hopefully this will disarm the claim we shouldn't move more aggressively because China or India are less committed or less effective than they ought to be.  They are actually more efficient in greenhouse emissions than we are on a per capita basis.  That alone suggests we should try harder.

Does that help you understand? 

P.S.:

Nothing I have said has anything to do with "Communism".I am simply explaining the logical mistake of assuming that China and India aren't as committed as we are to address AGW, because they emit much more.

I am simply using standard scientific/engineering modes of analysis as the basis for that explanation (which is undoubtedly why you are having trouble grasping it.)

Edited July 27, 2022 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,053]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Have you ever thought that China might be pouring resources into clean energy precisely to combat what you saw? The degree of pollution there because of short-sightedness and rapid growth and development is exactly what's spurring them to develop alternative energies quickly. And as homer said, if they are successful at mass-producing these technologies before us, they are likely to reap the benefits when other countries buy it from them. 

I'm sorry, but your comment is just mind-numbingly stupid. Just because there is widespread pollution in China does not mean it will always be that way. Why would you think a society is incapable of learning from past mista.....oh, right.....Trump supporter.

 

They are not even trying to reduce their output until 2030. There is no commitment. Anything they do is directly to benefit the communist party and their economy.  Not sorry but your comprehension of the global goals, politics, and objectives of the Chinese communist party are..well..mind numbingly stupid.

[homersapien 11,373]

3 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Renewables are not the key to AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE and AVAILABLE energy. Look at what is happening to Germany and Australia after going full throttle on ending fossil fuel way too early. 

Wind and solar will never be sufficient to supply the energy needs now or when millions of vehicles (personal, industrial, emergency, etc...) go electric.  Wind and solar cannot even provide the energy to supply the concrete, steel, lithium, etc...it would take to replace the solar arrays and wind turbines in the field when they fail...and they will.  

The only path forward after ending fossil fuel usage is nuclear energy. 

Very sloppy. 

Narrow-minded focus: What's wrong with combining methods of generation when it's all going to produce electricity?  How about decentralized grids? Who said we have to make concrete using only solar or wind? 

Absolutist rhetoric without qualifiers: "will never", "only" 

Disregard for scientific and technological progress and synergies and how they affect capabilities and economics.

Lack of imagination/vision:   "In a single hour, the amount of power from the sun that strikes the Earth is more than the entire world consumes in an year. To put that in numbers, from the US Department of Energy: Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth. That's 430 with 18 zeroes after it!"

 

Other than that, it was a fine post.  And nuclear will play an important role.

 

[Leftfield 2,601]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

They are not even trying to reduce their output until 2030. There is no commitment. Anything they do is directly to benefit the communist party and their economy.  Not sorry but your comprehension of the global goals, politics, and objectives of the Chinese communist party are..well..mind numbingly stupid.

Just because they haven't committed to pollution reduction goals doesn't mean they're not trying. They haven't committed for the exact reason you state - it doesn't benefit them. They can develop clean energy on their own timeline and not worry about answering to anyone else. That doesn't mean they aren't outpacing us. Despite what you may think, clean energy actually is a good long-term investment. Once again, if they grab the lead in getting these technologies to the rest of the world, they will have a huge financial advantage. Additionally, it won't do a ton of good for the Chinese government to drastically boost their power in the rest of the world if they have people revolting over the pollution at home, so they do have an incentive to get their act together.

You also ignore the investment that Chinese companies can make on their own. Yes, the government is Communist, but they've opened themselves up to a more Capitalist-driven economy, which has given them a huge boost. Just like American companies, they look out for their bottom line. Developing these technologies is just good business.

You and others that refuse to acknowledge that it's possible that other countries just might be doing some things better, do so at all our peril. Pigeonholing them with your own definition of what you think they are, rather than recognizing what they are doing, is foolish. It dismisses the possible threats against us and the benefits we might adopt from benevolent countries. Far too much of our population is resting on laurels.

You continue to show rigid and linear thinking whenever it comes to anything that doesn't toe the MAGA line. Your comment in another thread about how MAGAs want authoritarianism ("Just think about all the good things Trump could do without radical liberals trying to stop everything.") does not indicate an open mind.

 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

On 7/25/2022 at 11:19 AM, homersapien said:

I honestly don't know the value of nuclear as a "transition" strategy, but the ultimate goal for humankind is solar.

No, the ultimate goal for humanity is not solar. It is the diversity of energy sources. Wind and solar will never be able to be the sole sources. They are fine for boosting energy, but they are intermittent and unreliable. The end goal for humanity should be to provide cost-effective, reliable and available energy to everyone. That may mean a continued blend of current and future technologies. 

Nuclear is the best option long term, but that doesn't mean we should discontinue all other sources of energy production. Again, your reading comprehension is blinded by your ideology.  Childish really, but expected.

[autigeremt 6,630]

On 7/26/2022 at 4:23 PM, wdefromtx said:

Yeah cause once America achieves net zero it will save the planet. China and India say hello BTW. I am not saying do nothing, but why would we want to enact policies that put the US in a disadvantage to others, while lessening the chance we can have to innovate ways to help China and India and other third world countries that are polluting way worse than us and essentially 50-75 years behind on technology. 

What you want to do is try to jump to "clean" energy as soon as we can without regard to the impact it will have on the people of the US. And frankly won't make much of a damn difference when other countries do what they want.  

They don’t care! It’s not about “saving” the planet. It’s not about anything other than power and control through ideology. At the end of the day it hurts the least among us the most and does little to “clear” the air.  

[autigeremt 6,630]

44 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No, the ultimate goal for humanity is not solar. It is the diversity of energy sources. Wind and solar will never be able to be the sole sources. They are fine for boosting energy, but they are intermittent and unreliable. The end goal for humanity should be to provide cost-effective, reliable and available energy to everyone. That may mean a continued blend of current and future technologies. 

Nuclear is the best option long term, but that doesn't mean we should discontinue all other sources of energy production. Again, your reading comprehension is blinded by your ideology.  Childish really, but expected.

It’s their goal….and I see very little humankind in their end game. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

13 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

They don’t care! It’s not about “saving” the planet. It’s not about anything other than power and control through ideology. At the end of the day it hurts the least among us the most and does little to “clear” the air.  

The sale of “carbon credits” is a perfect example of this. 

[Leftfield 2,601]

27 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

They don’t care! It’s not about “saving” the planet. It’s not about anything other than power and control through ideology. At the end of the day it hurts the least among us the most and does little to “clear” the air.  

I'll be the first to admit that many seize on anything they can to use as leverage for power, but do you leave no room for the possibility that many people are genuinely concerned about our future and are doing what they believe necessary to protect it?

Edited July 28, 2022 by Leftfield

[AUFAN78 3,897]

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

Good post. 
 

Yeah, sure looks like China and India are trying and doing way better than us. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[autigeremt 6,630]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I'll be the first to admit that many seize on anything they can to use as leverage for power, but do you leave no room for the possibility that many people are genuinely concerned about our future and are doing what they believe necessary to protect it?

Sure….but they’re rational and rarely seek political clout. Fossil fuels need to be replaced but we are a long way off from replacing it. Until then we need to keep this country running at a high level. 

[Leftfield 2,601]

8 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Sure….but they’re rational and rarely seek political clout. Fossil fuels need to be replaced but we are a long way off from replacing it. Until then we need to keep this country running at a high level. 

I agree, there must be some balance, but there is going to be pain any way you look at it. It's true that the poorest will have the hardest time dealing with increased energy prices if we push hard for a transition, but they will also have the hardest time dealing with a hostile climate, and the longer it takes us to change, the worse it will get for them.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

13 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

No, the ultimate goal for humanity is not solar. It is the diversity of energy sources. Wind and solar will never be able to be the sole sources. They are fine for boosting energy, but they are intermittent and unreliable. The end goal for humanity should be to provide cost-effective, reliable and available energy to everyone. That may mean a continued blend of current and future technologies. 

Nuclear is the best option long term, but that doesn't mean we should discontinue all other sources of energy production. Again, your reading comprehension is blinded by your ideology.  Childish really, but expected.

Simply because I don't agree 100% with you regarding the potential of solar power in our future as part of our energy portfolio and are upset because I refuse to endorse putting all our eggs in the nuclear basket does not mean I have a problem with "reading comprehension".  Does everyone you disagree with have a "reading problem"?

What a completely arrogant thing to say.  

And you are obviously close-minded as evident by your labeling of my position as "ideological".

And you call  me childish? 

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

10 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Good post. 
 

Yeah, sure looks like China and India are trying and doing way better than us. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Again, that data is showing absolute emissions and not emissions emitted per person - which portrays a different perspective, which is just as real.

Look , the problem is ultimately caused by the amount of emissions the entire human species is contributing.  (Nature (physics) doesn't care about what countries they live in.)  So, if you look at the problem that way - the emissions each individual human emits, people in China - and just about every other country - is currently outperforming the U.S.  You may not care for that perspective, but it is a fact.

The U.S. produces far more emissions per person than any other country in the world.  That's due to our lifestyle (like buying huge SUVs to haul groceries and the large pool I operate.)

I understand why you are uncomfortable with that perspective (I am too) but it is nevertheless a valid one and it's one we need to keep in mind before pointing fingers at other countries.  (I bet your God gets it.)

I tried to explained it the best I could, but I can't force you to understand it.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by homersapien