View Single Post
Old 10-25-2018, 02:46 AM   #3472 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
America won the Cold War because money money money. A global economy addicted to US dollars and American consumers

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
Now you get into the difference of an environmentalist and a conservationist.
An environmentalist will deal in absolutes and usually end up at a solution that is worse for the environment.

A conservationist will weigh the pros and cons of each and try to figure an outcome that responsibility uses each resource.

California is a perfect example. They try so hard to "save the environment" they ruin it. Just look up "most polluted cities in America" and California is usually up near the top a lot especially when it comes to air pollution.
Or the thousands upon thousands of square miles of forest they clear cut and spray with roundup to maintain right of way for power transmission lines so they can "save the environment" by not building power plants.
By allowing environmentalist to run everything they ended up with a bunch of pollution and a surplus of stupidity.
California doesn't do enough clear-cutting... considering how bad the forest fires are. Strategic harvesting and herbicide use is actually "conservation" by your definition rather than environmentalism.

Also, radical environmentalists are trying to get everyone to stop using round-up... so...

Originally Posted by Xist View Post
Burning biomass merely releases the carbon the trees sequestered, but the trees are not sequestering carbon anymore. Biomass is often advertised as leftovers and byproducts, but is then 75% new wood. How is leveling a forest, releasing 101 units of pollution, and not having the trees around to sequester that carbon somehow better than mining carbon, releasing 100 units of pollution, and having the trees around to sequester carbon?
Nobody is suggesting clear-cutting forests wholesale to run industries. That's insane.

The trick is burning biomass that you've cultivated. With the assumption you're going to grow a new crop to burn every year.

And a further trick is not using up all your prime food growing land to do that.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
Oil companies admit the climate is changing but insist man has nothing to do with it.
Admitting they are the cause is financial suicide.
Then every 2 bit world country is going to try and sue them for perceived damages.
We're all guilty. Can't pin it all on the oil companies, they can't control what we do with the oil.

What can be pinned on them is the cover-up, but that will depend on the stockholders.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
I say the plant started warming 14,000 years ago and hasn't stopped and that the climate has been changing for at least the last 2.5 billion years and has never stopped.
There's a difference between sitting in a car where the air-conditioning has just been switched off and sitting in one that's been sitting under the sun in a parking lot for a few hours.

Rate of change and trajectory are important.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
I have, multiple times.
You and Neil ignore it every time.
Go back 20 to 150 pages on this post to find it.
I've debunked some of those several times.

You also ignored that.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to niky For This Useful Post:
aerohead (10-27-2018), NeilBlanchard (10-25-2018)