The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Trump is right: climate spending is damaging to the economy and will achieve little > Comments

Trump is right: climate spending is damaging to the economy and will achieve little : Comments

By Nicola Wright, published 28/11/2016

Worldwide there are 350 gigawatts of coal projects currently under construction, and 932 gigawatts of pre-construction coal proposals in the pipeline.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Given his interesting juxtaposition on climate change, D Trump has to be right! A series of hottest years on record occurring at a time when the solar furnace is waning. (cooling) And since the mid seventies, (NASA) has to tell even the die hard skeptics, that something not ever explained by increased solar thermal output is happening!

And what is harmed save the four trillion dollar a year fossil fuel industry, we MUST opt for different fuel sources? And on SANE economic grounds alone!

That fuel is safe clean cheap thorium! Thorium is abundant and arguably the most energy dense material on the planet!

And a proven walk away safe technology only abandoned, because there was no weapons spin off!

Simply put, if our solar thermal furnace was in a waxing (Heating) phase and guaranteed to follow the current waning (cooling) phase! We would have already likely crossed the tipping point of no return?

Yes, we have wasted billions on "green solutions" and had we invested those billions further developing Thorium molten salt reactors and tasked them with burning and burning nuclear waste again and again? We could be riding a wave of exponentially expanding energy driven prosperity!

The most prominent danger we confront is perpetually prevaricating politicians shirking their duty in favor of catering to special vested interests? Were this not so, we would have already adopted clean walk away safe ultra safe thorium molten salt nuclear energy?

And given we could couple this ultra cheap energy to some really massive and very affordable desalination projects; set about drought proofing a nation! And among a host of other innumerable benefits, cut very deeply into the farmer suicide rate!

Much more important and a better use of scarce resources, than trying to prosper a tiny cabal of cronies, with retained negative gearing and (mates rates) tax breaks, for folk who not only don't need them, but have done absolutely nothing of real and lasting worth to actually earn even a fraction of them? And wasted billions!

Don't just do something, stand there!
Goats butt, butt, leaders lead!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 28 November 2016 9:25:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels may be expensive but it cushions against possible traumatic shocks later on. Even coal will get expensive one day possibly at the same time as oil and gas.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Could-Peak-Coal-Really-Be-Here.html
Coal reserves in developing countries like India, Vietnam and China are poor quality compared to those in the US and Australia. If those countries have to import coal they may regret building new power stations that depend on it.

If oil gets expensive (as it was as recently as 2008) there may be a rush to electric cars. If they are charged with coal fired electricity emissions will worsen. Countries like Australia that are caught unprepared will pay a heavy price. In retrospect taking some pain early on will have seemed like a good idea. Climate change concern will be rekindled with the next round of bushfires and coral bleaching.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 28 November 2016 9:28:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course Trump is right about the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 28 November 2016 9:37:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a breath of fresh air. Thanks for some common sense Nicola.

Come on Alan B, given your lucidity on other subjects I can't believe you actually believe your above post. What's your angle. Do you think it will force the clowns to accept nuclear? It may, when Beattie almost ran Brisbane out of water, the greenies were very much less anti dam than usual.

Oh what a good idea Taswegian. Because something, power in this instance, might become more expensive & life therefore harder in the not even foreseeable future let's put the price artificially higher now. Talk about hair shirt arguments.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 28 November 2016 11:06:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ttbn, there are some earthers that would say that the con that the world is a globe is the greatest hoax.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 28 November 2016 12:08:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's just one small problem with your thorium fantasies, Alan B.

Nothing major, mind you. Its just that a commercial thorium reactor hasn't been built. Never. And no one knows if the technology even works commercially. The very earliest a demonstration reactor will be built is 2024, if the myriad problems can be/are resolved. The earliest we'll have access to a full commercial reactor will therefore be 2030-2040. Now when you're demanding that we move the economy to thorium now, that might be a problem..perhaps!

Since we are now in the realm of demanding that politicians implement solutions that are complete fantasy simply because we wish they existed, I propose we run our energy generation by using pixie dust and ground unicorn horn. And don't tell me they don''t exist...that is clearly beside the point.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 28 November 2016 12:14:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze, how dense are you really? Get online and look at a thorium molten salt reactor being built, step by step and in the fifties at a place called Oak Ridge Tennessee! No pixie dust included!

And after being starved of R+D funds was shut down by Nixon who diverted the funds to an unsuccessful molten metal FBR in his home state of California during the seventies

! I'd also be pleased if all you coal share owning retirees would take a look at Thorium V greens. Then take a guided tour of the PIXIE DUST POWERED Indian facility as an online spectator.

Or look at kirk Sorensen's in depth update or how simple it is to turn currently flared methane into liquid methanol!

Yes, we've paid for Nixon's "corrupt" interference, when he prematurely pulled the plug? Perhaps because no problems were encountered or they were too successful?

The fact it didn't produce electrical power, but was lit by nearby Oak Ridge coal fired power station is not the point!? As something capable of safely maintaining temperatures of around or over 700C, is quite capable of running a heated gas turbine!

As for the spurious argument they don't exist?

Might also be applied to the catalytic cracking of the water molecule to produce hydrogen! We don't do that now, but we did, and could do so again any time we want!

Or much more exciting than turning water into fuel, is the new deionization desalination method the desalinates water for around quarter of the price of conventional reverse osmosis, all while producing 95% potable water!

Testing in Texas, proving even at current energy input costs, able to provide cost effective broad scale irrigation!

And don't our farmers need that? Or is it just another case of, I'm alright Jack?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 28 November 2016 2:41:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen paying for something when there is apparently no immediate crisis is called insurance.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 28 November 2016 3:14:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian says” it cushions against possible traumatic shocks later on”
How do these shocks arise, Taswegian?
Are you able to refer us to science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate?
Perhaps you took notice of the failed climate fraud promoter, James Hansen, and his baseless assertions.
“Hansen completely ignored the facts that there has been no rapid global warming over the last three decades and there is no evidence that the gentle warming of the late 20th century was the result of carbon dioxide emissions”
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/08/james-hansen-s-many-and-varied-furphies/
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 28 November 2016 3:55:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LL there are climate shocks and fuel price shocks. In March 2016 Tasmania faced the prospect of residential electricity rationing due to low dam levels as a result of El Nino. Over 100 diesel gensets were leased at great cost and a mothballed gas plant was brought out of retirement. I have no reason to doubt the next El Nino will be as bad or worse.

That was this year. In 2008 the Global Financial Crisis was triggered when oil nudged $150 a barrel in conjunction with subprime mortgage defaults. Again I have no reason to doubt it couldn't repeat just as suddenly.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 28 November 2016 4:46:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
given the hypocrisy of the gw high priest who can't help flying around the world and lecturing to others its no wonder the public have woken up to the scam. The ' elites ' might have dumbed down the getup crowd but thankfully those who have lived a few decades have lived through a number of these scams and will continue to revolt. No slow down either of the deplorables off the Bali being packed in like sheep while Gore flies his personal jets and the multitudes of bureacrats and past Australians of the year flying business and first class on money scammed from the workers.

btw I am still vsiiting beaches I have been for 50 years. No real differnce although they tell me now the heat is hiding in the ocean. How gullible can one get. We have been told for the last 50 years that the Barrier Reef only has a couple of years left. No doubt the scare will continue for the next lot of green/labour voters.
Posted by runner, Monday, 28 November 2016 4:47:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
L.L. Get online and look at thorium on U tube! And then understand if you're intellectually capable, the enormous overwhelming economic argument for CHEAPER THAN COAL, SAFER THAN COAL, CLEANER THAN COAL thorium based energy!

And then go with that, moderated only by reason and logic!

Forget coal or climate change and just focus purely and simply on the economic case for thorium and against any other currently available or doable energy source! It's a no brainer!

Have a look for yourself, rather than allow (economically threatened) coal company execs or shareholders to basically B.S you out of taking a butchers for yourself? THEIR GOAL!?

Options include a blow by blow description of building a working prototype molten salt thorium reactor and the means/techniques for adding new material or removing medical miracle isotopes, while the walk away safe reactor is running.

Or, take a online guided tour through the new Indian facility? Get acquainted with the evidence based chapter and verse facts presented by many keynote speakers!

Then draw your own inescapable conclusions about how much of this irrefutable science is pixie dust straight out of the fantasy land of cyber bullies; and how much is backed by "PROVEN" science! THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT!

I invite, Never ever and his B.S. ("Bachelor of Science") coal company buddies, to challenge Scientists like Kirk Sorensen to an informed debate? [Please, make my day, I DOUBLE DARE YOU!] As depicted in Thorium V greens and as they tour around a coal fired power station!

Gather the relevant facts and then let them stand or fall on evidence based merit!

All you can lose is preconceived and patently false prejudices/mountainous misinformation!

Which documents former high profile greens converted to thorium energy on the irrefutable science! Never ever old mate, willful ignorance is just a self applied blindfold that protects you from the verifiable facts!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 28 November 2016 4:56:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see that the author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels Alex Epstein, and the company that he keeps, namely all of the usual "libertarian" propaganda factories is/are fully paid up subscribers and promoters of the kind of economics and politics pointed to and described in the book Toxic Sludge Is Good For You.

It is also interesting to note that one of his principal influences is the completely amoral "philosopher" Ayn Rand.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 28 November 2016 5:19:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Nicola. I've been arguing in the same vein for many years. We are very poor at foreseeing the future, it will always surprise us. The best way to prepare for it is to increase our capacity through robust economic growth, based on free markets, enterprise, smaller government and the development of resilience in both individuals and communities. Whatever challenges any further warming might bring - and I'm not at all convinced that the costs will outweigh the benefits, e.g. growing more food from less land and global reforestation which have been occurring during the warming - we'll be more able to deal with it than with current economically damaging policies which will have no impact on warming. And we will have more resources both in the short and long terms to address the many far more pressing issues which currently exist or which emerge.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 28 November 2016 7:18:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do you actually believe that Taswegian, or is it the green/left cover story you are adhering to.

The reason your dams were low was the Labor/Green government had been cashing in on the global warming scam, & flogging lots of your hydro alternate energy across the straight at high prices, to cover some of their drunken sailor spending.

It is poetic justice that the get rich quick scheme turned & bit them in the backside.

Of course it is a pity that those who did not vote to put the fools in government are also paying through the nose for that dreadful governments ratbaggery.

Not much use repairing the Bass Straight link now, with a fool Labor government in Victoria paying their dues for Green preferences by closing down some of their real power plants, think coal even if it is brown, in favour of Mickey Mouse wind power.

Time to build a coal importing port, & build a real power plant. You should make a killing keeping Victoria's lights on, as their wind power does a South Australia on them, & bites their backside. You could do it like China, with Queensland coal. Got to be better than depending on imported diesel.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 28 November 2016 8:24:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B,

I understand that you've totally bought the hype around thorium and that mere reality doesn't factor into your calculations. But the reality is that there are no, (repeat NO), commercial thorium reactors around that can be installed now to satisfy your fantasies.

I've shown you this before but since it doesn't fit your memes, you've continually ignored it.

Here is what the gentleman in charge of the Chinese thorium research team (Professor Li) says about the development of a viable commercial thorium reactor:

"We are still in the dark about the physical and chemical nature of thorium in many ways. There are so many problems to deal with but so little time".

The Chinese hope (and its just a hope) to have a demonstration plant running by 2024, if the myriad problems can be resolved.

The head of the Bureau of Major Research and Development Programmes of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has also opined:

* that one of the technical difficulties is that the molten salt produces highly corrosive chemicals such as fluoride that could damage the reactor

* that the power plant would also have to operate at extremely high temperatures, raising concerns about safety

* that researchers have limited knowledge of how to use thorium

Since the Chinese are a the forefront of thorium reactor research, I'm guessing they know a little about the subject. But they clearly don't have your extensive YouTube based research to fall back on.

Thorium might work and it might be the go-to technology in a generation or two. But shouting that the only thing holding it back is venal pollies is the most naive of notions.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 29 November 2016 8:12:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, Trump is right. It is just the rest of the world that is wrong. European nations such as Denmark, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK are now showing “absolute decoupling” – that is, their fossil fuel use is declining while their economies continue to expand. But clearly there must be a conspiracy about the data - either they are secretly using fossil fuels or their economies are not really growing for Trump is right.
Trump is right because in those countries where there is a decline in the use of fossil fuels it has not been because of anything that the governments have done. Rather housholds and corporations have seen the writing on the wall. They are not anticpating things like a carbon tax they have simply done their homework. The ratio of amount of energy needed to extract fossil fuels to energy created is shifting inexorably to the extraction side. So regardless of climate change alternatives need to be found. But yes Trump is right.
Posted by BAYGON, Tuesday, 29 November 2016 9:15:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am just waiting for the first climate denialist to pitch on here saying climate change is a scam because the global temperature hasn't increased since 2015.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 29 November 2016 11:35:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Baygon, after stupidly closing its nuclear power plants because of a tsunami in Japan (unbelievable), Germany has now turned to the highly-polluting lignite (brown coal) for baseload power, along with importing nuclear-sourced power from France.
Posted by Faustino, Tuesday, 29 November 2016 12:40:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Relax Agronomist

chances are you will die from cold rather than heat.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 29 November 2016 1:29:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Confused fellow, aren’t you Taswegian?
You advocate support of the global warming fraud, which falsely asserts the baseless human effect on climate, and then tell us that the shocks will come from natural warming, and fuel price rises, which rises would be caused by action based on the climate fraud. You have a tenuous grasp of reality, Taswegian, and no ability to make logical or truthful statements.
What else would we expect from a fraud promoter?
There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, which makes your ridiculous definition of insurance look very stupid.
Climate fraud support can only be based on ignorance or dishonesty. Which of them is your basis, Taswegian?
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 November 2016 2:05:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Duck, as a climate fraud supporter, has nothing to rebut this well written, factual article.
In standard fraud promoter procedure, since there is no science or facts to back the assertions of the fraud, the Duck baselessly smears the author of a book to which Nicola refers.
Fancy a lefty, like the Duck, having the temerity to stigmatise anyone for being “amoral”.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 November 2016 1:49:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the the world of lies are truth; and truth means lies, the world did stop warming in 1998 ( fake reporting).

BUT, in the world of science warming did continue. Matthew Holland et al have written about Oceans warming; and now, a new NASA study has come to the same conclusion. So, while temperature over land did not show large increases in temperature, warmth was taken up by the marine environment.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2521/study-sheds-new-insights-into-global-warming-trends/

We continually hear from deniers about how temperature is fraudulently manipulated ; in the US a series of weather stations were set up a number of years ago; each set up to measure temperature in a number of ways, virtually set up as datum points.
Weather stations set up years ago have been moved, the time temperature is measured has changed, the environment around them has changed, as have techniques of obtaining data changed. Meaning that consideration has to be taken in comparing current temperature, with temperature taken many decades ago.

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/CRN%20Paper%20Revised.pdf
Posted by ant, Saturday, 3 December 2016 7:28:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's a lot here I agree with! Yes, the WRONG energy spending increases the cost of energy to business with the oh-so-fatal intermittency of renewables. But it doesn't have to be that way. France has some of the cheapest electricity in Europe, is the largest exporter of electricity in the world, and has some of the lowest emissions in Europe.

Nuclear is the answer. Breeder reactors eat nuclear waste, converting a 100,000 year storage problem into tomorrow's energy solution. Yes, they are still being commercialised but 400 reactor-years experience with them shows that the physics works, and they can be built CHEAPER and SAFER than today's Light Water Reactors. (Water is an expensive safety issue as it runs under explosively high pressure in reactors. Other coolants run at just above room pressure).

$60 billion? I'd pump it into 30 AP1000 reactors (at the very high price of $5bn / GW, which would probably come way down if we built an AP1000 factory). Then without coal's nasty health effects on society, those nukes would be cheaper than today's coal fired electricity. It makes economic sense to deal with climate change, and that's not even COSTING climate change but just the public health purse!
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 3 December 2016 10:23:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mhaze,
no COMMERCIAL thorium reactors, granted! But there used to be no commercial ipods, iphones, Tesla EV's, microwave ovens, electric light bulbs....

Anyway, your objection is a fantasy of its own. We don't HAVE to build those beautiful thorium reactors yet (even though we KNOW the physics back to front and inside out). We can build today's safe nuclear power plants, fast. If we had the political will. We could nationalise power, and just roll out today's AP1000's. That will solve the climate and coal-health crisis while we wait for the Chinese to complete their massive MSR commercialisation project. Then they'll sell our idea back to us, probably with extra fries with that if we buy four at a go.

Dr Hansen says the entire world just needs to build 115 GW reactors a year.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

That includes powering the poor and unborn billions to completely clean up all power by 2050. 115GW a year. That's doable. How do we know? The French already BEAT this record on a reactor per GDP basis.

There's nothing mysterious about how to solve climate change, and the benefits have been recorded in history. The French already did it, and now export more reliable clean electricity than any other nation on earth!
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 3 December 2016 10:32:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max should desist from posting when he is in a delusional state. His standard lies are bad enough, but his delusions about France’s nuclear power generation are too stupid to be funny.
“ Electricité de France has had to shut down 18 of its 58 nuclear reactors THESE are difficult times for Electricité de France (EDF), the country’s quasi-monopolistic electricity provider, serving 88% of homes. Outages at no fewer than 18 of the 58 EDF-owned nuclear reactors that provide three-quarters of France’s electricity have meant a slump in production: the company says annual nuclear output could fall to 378 terawatt hours (TWH), from 417 TWH last year. Eight reactors are currently lying idle and several may not restart for weeks or months. Power stations are burning coal at a rate not seen since the 1980s. As electricity imports and prices soar, officials are having to deny that a cold snap could bring blackouts.
https://nuclear-news.net/category/2-world/europe/france-europe-2-world-area/
Coal generated electricity is the cheapest and most reliable.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 3 December 2016 12:26:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo's trolling again like a demented dogmatist struggling to deny reality in the face of new data. Just because some reactors are OLD, built in the 1970's and needing maintenance 40+ years later, does not undermine a whole technology. Especially when those old Gen2 reactors can be replaced with passive-safety AP1000 Gen3 reactors. Got some trite trolling snide little remark to make AP1000's disappear?

Let's remember:-

France IS the world's largest exporter of electricity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_exports

The French are at "80 grams of CO2 per kWh for two decades, the Germans are still putting out ~450 grams/kwh and Australia is close to world’s worst practice ~850 grams/kwh."
https://bravenewclimate.com/2013/02/18/two-decades-and-counting/

Dirty energy sources like wood, animal dung, and fossil fuels kill about 7 million people a year, and coal is about half of this. Compare this to the Chernobyl accident, which might eventually kill about 4000 people. Coal kills 2 Chernobyl's a day!
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/
This is why George Monbiot says: “….when coal goes right it kills more people than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. It kills more people every week than nuclear power has in its entire history. And that’s before we take climate change into account.”
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/10/09/the-heart-of-the-matter/

The health costs nearly double the cost of coal!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Dr James Hansen has calculated that by displacing coal, nuclear power has already saved 1.8 million lives.
http://goo.gl/nL4lMu

When these 'externalised' costs of coal are counted, nuclear power is already cheaper than coal.

Only dogmatists with an undeniable agenda deny new data. Der!
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 3 December 2016 12:41:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Leo Lane.

I have asked this question of MMCC deniers countless times, possibly nearing 100, and am yet to receive a single sensible reply.

Let us suppose you are right, and we stop all efforts to counter global warming, and let's say in 50 years time we find out, too late, that you were wrong.

We reach the tipping point, temperatures and sea levels start to rise exponentially, billions of lives are at risk.

What do you say to your grandkids? Oops?

On the other hand, what if we continue trying to slow GW down, and in 50 years time we discover YOU were right, how do the two scenarios compare?

I can tell my grandchildren I did what I thought was right, and I was wrong, but at least we have a cleaner, less polluted planet.

What will you say?
Posted by Billyd, Tuesday, 6 December 2016 6:08:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I urge everyone to watch this documentary, if you have Netflix you can watch it there, it's called Cowspiracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-XP79o8gqQ

This doco is not without it's critics, and some of the numbers are disputed, some up, and some down, but still well worth a look.
Posted by Billyd, Tuesday, 6 December 2016 6:15:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Billyd,
EXACTLY! If the climate community are wrong (which for me would be like discovering Newton's laws of physics were wrong, or the Earth rotating the Sun was wrong!), then we would have prepared for the peaking of resources before it got to serious. Remember, the energy *supply* crisis does not start when the resource suddenly runs out. It's when they peak and begin to decline and supply for the coal, oil, or gas can never again meet demand.

If it's all a big conspiracy... we would have cleaner air, energy not for a generation but forever, less potential for oil wars, and jobs in industries that will last. Oil, coal, and gas are finite but LONG before they run out they peak and become far more expensive. That's a real problem, especially with oil. Peak oil is no where as serious as climate change, but it IS a threat and we would be far better served if our leaders moved to wean off it early.

Oh, and we'd save the *millions* of lives a year lost to fossil fuel pollution!
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 6 December 2016 8:03:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy