Getting Greedy?

[Isaac Zachary]

The problem for me is that there are politicians that support the other side. So which politician is right?

Global warming just seems logical to me I guess. Pump a lot of carbon to the surface, burn it and not expect some sort of environmental effect doesn't seem logical.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

The problem for me is that there are politicians that support the other side. So which politician is right?

The one who places fewer barriers to the implementation of practical solutions, instead of imposing problems in order to sell a false solution.

Pump a lot of carbon to the surface, burn it and not expect some sort of environmental effect doesn't seem logical.

Raising all hell to prevent some bio-remediation approaches which could lead to a much lesser disruption to the average Joe's life also doesn't seem logical, yet it's what most politicians seem to endorse nowadays in a worldwide basis. This is why sometimes I take some global warming claims with a grain of salt, when practical solutions which seem to have fewer downsides are neglected in order to promote fancier approaches which in turn may become too expensive and unpractical.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

The one who places fewer barriers to the implementation of practical solutions, instead of imposing problems in order to sell a false solution.




Raising all hell to prevent some bio-remediation approaches which could lead to a much lesser disruption to the average Joe's life also doesn't seem logical, yet it's what most politicians seem to endorse nowadays in a worldwide basis. This is why sometimes I take some global warming claims with a grain of salt, when practical solutions which seem to have fewer downsides are neglected in order to promote fancier approaches which in turn may become too expensive and unpractical.

I think we simply have differences of opinion, and that's ok. I'll say just one more thing and quit.

What are practical solutions and what are false solutions? All I see among politicians are those who feel there is a problem and think they can fix it so make more restrictions, and those who say there isn't a problem and so loosen the restrictions. I don't think ignoring the problem and loosening restrictions is a practical solution. I don't think there is a practical solution. And politicians aren't the only ones with wants and desires. People in general have their own goals and desires. Telling them something they don't want to hear isn't easy. Just because everyone wants to drive a car doesn't make it harmless.

If cars and power plants and the like are destroying the planet and the quickest solution is to just stop driving, using electricity, etc., how do you implement that without disrupting the average Joe's life? If scientists say we need to reverse the damage done wouldn't measures that only lessen the damage being done still be damaging? I don't think there is a practical solution. I don't think EVs are the solution. I don't think public transportation is the solution. I really don't know what mankind can do about it.

I have friends in many places around the world. I've seen an increase in hurricanes, drought, tornadoes and the like. I've been in a hurricane, I've been in a couple storms close to several tornadoes, in one with softball sized hail smashing down on my car with me and my family inside it. We no longer get the snow we used to, in fact there are years that we get less than an inch that sticks around, a huge difference to the several feet we used to get that was so deep you had to tunnel into your house. Reservoirs are dry, there isn't enough water. Forest fires are at an all time high.

I don't think politicians have the ability to fix the problem. If people are hooked on electricity and automobiles and we've already pumped too much CO2 into the atmosphere, what can be done? Build fireproof, hurricaneproof and tornadoproof houses and cars I guess and just continue as we have.

[freebeard]

I don't think there is a practical solution. I don't think EVs are the solution. I don't think public transportation is the solution. I don't know what mankind can do about it.
[a few moments la-tare]
...what can be done? Build fireproof, hurricaneproof and tornadoproof houses and cars I guess and just continue as we have.

I amuse myself at your expense. Sorry.

Things we apparently cannot do:

• Stop using ad revenue to build Internet.
• Use performance rather than specific materials in building codes
• Chill out and stop being so frenetic

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I think we simply have differences of opinion, and that's ok.

Absolutely.

What are practical solutions and what are false solutions? All I see among politicians are those who feel there is a problem and think they can fix it so make more restrictions, and those who say there isn't a problem and so loosen the restrictions. I don't think ignoring the problem and loosening restrictions is a practical solution. I don't think there is a practical solution. And politicians aren't the only ones with wants and desires. People in general have their own goals and desires. Telling them something they don't want to hear isn't easy. Just because everyone wants to drive a car doesn't make it harmless.

Well, I consider ethanol and CNG (eventually replacing it with biomethane) are a much more practical approach than insisting on an EV-only approach. Let's suppose all the electric power became sourced from zero-carbon sources, and the ICE became effectively banned even while they could run on biofuels and help closing the carbon and nitrogen cycles, all the organic matter discarded instead of being used as a feedstock for biofuels would simply rot away releasing raw methane into the atmosphere, which half-life is IIRC 6 times longer than post-combustion CO². Considering not only the possibility for farmers to brew their own fuel integrated to their cash-crops and livestock raising, but also a cleaner management of waste and sewage in large metropolitan areas, neglecting eventual benefits the ICE can still provide becomes troublesome.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

The problem for me is that there are politicians that support the other side. So which politician is right?

Global warming just seems logical to me I guess. Pump a lot of carbon to the surface, burn it and not expect some sort of environmental effect doesn't seem logical.

>

.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

"Finding it whether it exists or not"... I guess you know about the goat-in-the-room metaphor.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

The problem for me is that there are politicians that support the other side. So which politician is right?

Global warming just seems logical to me I guess. Pump a lot of carbon to the surface, burn it and not expect some sort of environmental effect doesn't seem logical.

Before it was global cooling. What if the effect is an exact balance of cooling and heating?

I personally think the earth is a very buffered system. Input in one area causes a reaction in another to stabilize everything. It just couldn't have been here for so long and survived the cruelty of space, there just has to be more to it. Just ignoring in the models for changes in how clouds might increase with increasing CO2 reflecting more solar energy out into space. If a model is made, a guess has to be made, and the guess is always to make it worse not better.

Also warmer is always terrible. To me it seems the best land masses will actually be improved for humans by a warmer climate overall. Maybe we lose some aeras over here, but gain twice as much over there. So we adapt if it all does go as bad as some proje8.

[Piotrsko]

Been watching a bunch of PBS EON shows where they infer that warmer is pretty much lots wetter in places where people aren't crammed together. sucks for the crammed masses, but makes the Saharan desert a green jungle again.

Back in the day it was proposed that Gaia was removing the pest infestation of people but that precludes intentions unmeasureable.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I personally think the earth is a very buffered system. Input in one area causes a reaction in another to stabilize everything.

Makes sense.

To me it seems the best land masses will actually be improved for humans by a warmer climate overall. Maybe we lose some aeras over here, but gain twice as much over there. So we adapt if it all does go as bad as some proje8.

A warmer climate may eventually be beneficial for agriculture and food safety, as some crops may get 2 harvests year-round.