|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Feb 25, 2022 20:33:24 GMT -8
You lost me at Venezuela. Venezuela? ............. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the World? Venezuela is also a member of OPEC. Maduro is a despot, but they have oil. If we had the will to save Venezuela from Maduro, we could provide freedom from Venezuelans and open up the ability to trade for Venezuelan oil. Win-win for America, Venezuela and the World in general. And a blow to China and Russia and their Axis of Evil. I’m aware. It’s the company you keep. Hey, we, the government are taking your billion dollar investment. Now beat it. I believe it’s also very heavy crude, expensive to refine. |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Feb 25, 2022 20:42:34 GMT -8
Yes, no kidding. If I was king, we would pay an extra dollar per gallon to fill up our cars. Then we would use that money to go full bore on solar, wind, tidal and whatever else is more environmentally friendly. A bit related but a few years ago I was in the Tampa Bay area. I didn't know Florida was such a big user of coal. There is a huge coal fired power plant right on the bay in a town called Adamsville. It's ironic because it looks as if it is about 4-feet above sea level. So the sea level rise it is causing will drown it 50 or so years.  Or at 3.4 mm/year..................359 years. 2381 is going to be pretty bleak. China produces more than double the CO2 that the United States produces every year. The United States produces less than a seventh of the World's CO2. Unless you get China and the rest of the world to reduce their production of CO2, it does not really matter what we do. Also, I do not want to minimize global warming, because it is a huge problem and something that we should work to stop. But China and Russia are both more worrisome than a potential four foot sea level rise in 359 years. Having said all of that, I do want to emphasize that we should all take all of the steps that we can to minimize our personal CO2 footprint. As with everything else, we should all be thinking globally but acting locally. good golly. Can you find other data somewhere on the internet that supports what you want to see? Justifying more polllution because China does it is a loser. There may be another Krakatoa so we may as well do nothing. Does the Goddard Space Flight Center make a predicted range of possible sea level rises in the next 50 years? century? The math you did . . . congratulations on getting it right. |
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Feb 25, 2022 20:54:09 GMT -8
The Russian invasion of Ukraine coupled with China's threats to use military force to subjugate Taiwan has me pretty pessimistic about humanity's future. In the age of nuclear weapons strongmen are acting like the old order of starting a war out of thin air is an acceptable way to go. I hoped after World War II and the proxy wars of the Cold War era would have taught us that this level of violence doesn't work but no such luck. I know the US has had its fair share of "police actions" and other massed violence so who are we to criticize, but this is next-level in that it's just gobbling up another country.
Invading and taking over another country. In 2022. Insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 25, 2022 21:50:54 GMT -8
Or at 3.4 mm/year..................359 years. 2381 is going to be pretty bleak. China produces more than double the CO2 that the United States produces every year. The United States produces less than a seventh of the World's CO2. Unless you get China and the rest of the world to reduce their production of CO2, it does not really matter what we do. Also, I do not want to minimize global warming, because it is a huge problem and something that we should work to stop. But China and Russia are both more worrisome than a potential four foot sea level rise in 359 years. Having said all of that, I do want to emphasize that we should all take all of the steps that we can to minimize our personal CO2 footprint. As with everything else, we should all be thinking globally but acting locally. good golly. Can you find other data somewhere on the internet that supports what you want to see? Justifying more pollution because China does it is a loser. There may be another Krakatoa so we may as well do nothing. Does the Goddard Space Flight Center make a predicted range of possible sea level rises in the next 50 years? century? The math you did . . . congratulations on getting it right. If you are serious about leveling off CO2 production, you must get China and Russia to go along. And not the delayed nonsense in the Paris Accords and not the allowing Russia to count its baseline as if the USSR were still in existence. The fact of the matter is that the United States' CO2 emissions today are approximately what they were 50 years ago, more than 25% off peak CO2 emissions around the end of the last Millennium. Since the end of the last Millennium China's CO2 emissions have increased by more than 275%. All of the work that the United States has done in the past 20-25 years to become more sustainable has been grossly exceeded by China's delta. The United States can go to zero emissions, and China's delta will still have undone what the United States has done. The colorful phrase, "fart in a windstorm," comes to mind. The United States wants to self-flagellate to try and force a transition to more sustainable energy, but, unless you can get China to go along, it almost literally does not matter. Generally, I believe that we should be working to ensure that China and Russia play by globally-accepted norms. Don't just eradicate species of animals. Don't pump CFCs into the atmosphere. Quit enslaving minorities. Respect the territorial integrity of other countries. Work to reduce CO2 emissions. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Feb 25, 2022 22:02:28 GMT -8
Yes, no kidding. If I was king, we would pay an extra dollar per gallon to fill up our cars. Then we would use that money to go full bore on solar, wind, tidal and whatever else is more environmentally friendly. A bit related but a few years ago I was in the Tampa Bay area. I didn't know Florida was such a big user of coal. There is a huge coal fired power plant right on the bay in a town called Adamsville. It's ironic because it looks as if it is about 4-feet above sea level. So the sea level rise it is causing will drown it 50 or so years. Or at 3.4 mm/year..................359 years. 2381 is going to be pretty bleak. China produces more than double the CO2 that the United States produces every year. The United States produces less than a seventh of the World's CO2. Unless you get China and the rest of the world to reduce their production of CO2, it does not really matter what we do. Also, I do not want to minimize global warming, because it is a huge problem and something that we should work to stop. But China and Russia are both more worrisome than a potential four foot sea level rise in 359 years. Having said all of that, I do want to emphasize that we should all take all of the steps that we can to minimize our personal CO2 footprint. As with everything else, we should all be thinking globally but acting locally. So the question is: Since the world eventually MUST turn away from fossil fuels, do you want the US to be at the forefront of invention, marketing, and development, or would you rather sit back and use fossil fuels until China (or some other country) develops more reliable and better ways of harvesting renewable energy? We can either be leading the world and selling our goods or buying from others. I think the US has the capability. We have the workers and we have the researchers to do this on a national scale. If we made a commitment to get off oil by 2035, we could do it. Well, at least we could get very close. And the industry would thrive. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Feb 25, 2022 22:15:07 GMT -8
Then, let me amend that. Though I think you know what I meant. If only Ukraine was selling large amounts of oil to the US like Russia is (or was, before sanctions). Actually, rather than drilling in the Western Hemisphere for crude oil, we would be better served by weaning the country off the oil, so that we aren't beholden to the politics of other countries and we don't waste American lives fighting for an oil field in the middle of a desert. We should have made this push back in 1990 with Bush senior and the Iraq war. (More likely, before that during the Iran affairs, but I was too young to care, and I hate history.) Pour more resources into alternative energies. We can do it. And what a joy it would be. OPEC would be meaningless. OPEC would be meaningless if we used the oil and natural gas reserves we have in the US, but you knew that. We could actually be a huge exporter of NG to Europe if we actually developed LNG facilities, further relegating Russia’s energy resources unnecessary. Yes, I agree. But I think it’s short-sighted. Yes, it solves the oil dependency problem, but it doesn’t work to solve the environmental damage caused by CO2. Plus, it has the possibility of creating more environmental damage upon our own shores. Fracking has a terrible reputation. And the wilderness area that would be torn up by drilling and laying pipeline would be scarred. Wouldn’t it be a cleaner break just to push hard to get off oil? (I imagine we’ll still need some for rockets to space, fighter jets and tanks and the like.) |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 25, 2022 22:27:57 GMT -8
Or at 3.4 mm/year..................359 years. 2381 is going to be pretty bleak. China produces more than double the CO2 that the United States produces every year. The United States produces less than a seventh of the World's CO2. Unless you get China and the rest of the world to reduce their production of CO2, it does not really matter what we do. Also, I do not want to minimize global warming, because it is a huge problem and something that we should work to stop. But China and Russia are both more worrisome than a potential four foot sea level rise in 359 years. Having said all of that, I do want to emphasize that we should all take all of the steps that we can to minimize our personal CO2 footprint. As with everything else, we should all be thinking globally but acting locally. So the question is: Since the world eventually MUST turn away from fossil fuels, do you want the US to be at the forefront of invention, marketing, and development, or would you rather sit back and use fossil fuels until China (or some other country) develops more reliable and better ways of harvesting renewable energy? We can either be leading the world and selling our goods or buying from others. I think the US has the capability. We have the workers and we have the researchers to do this on a national scale. If we made a commitment to get off oil by 2035, we could do it. Well, at least we could get very close. And the industry would thrive. I want everyone committed to the task. Everyone in the world working together is best. You trust that China and Russia will behave rationally and in a civilized manner? Because I sure as heck don't. We could get off of oil by 2035? As of right now, that means that airports are ghost towns and that there is almost zero maritime trade. China and Russia need to calm the heck down for that to be remotely viable. And we would have to greatly expand say rail infrastructure to make the lack of flying viable. It's possible, but it seems like a pipedream (pun intended) to me. I could see it in say 50 years after 2035. 2085? 2100? Maybe. Early in the 2100s seems more probable. Supply-side "leading the world" is not the way. We need to create the demand with the ability to provide the supply. Trying to force the transition before the technology is really there, though? It sounds like you will poison the well. Sustainable energy will be the new New Coke. People will be prejudiced against sustainable energy. That is a great way to make sure that it never happens. There is that Indian proverb that Pat Casey paraphrased all of the time, “Blessed is he who plants trees under whose shade he will never sit.” We all need to be moving that way. We can be one of the leaders, but we should not be the first one out on a limb. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Feb 26, 2022 8:57:00 GMT -8
So the question is: Since the world eventually MUST turn away from fossil fuels, do you want the US to be at the forefront of invention, marketing, and development, or would you rather sit back and use fossil fuels until China (or some other country) develops more reliable and better ways of harvesting renewable energy? We can either be leading the world and selling our goods or buying from others. I think the US has the capability. We have the workers and we have the researchers to do this on a national scale. If we made a commitment to get off oil by 2035, we could do it. Well, at least we could get very close. And the industry would thrive. I want everyone committed to the task. Everyone in the world working together is best. You trust that China and Russia will behave rationally and in a civilized manner? Because I sure as heck don't. We could get off of oil by 2035? As of right now, that means that airports are ghost towns and that there is almost zero maritime trade. China and Russia need to calm the heck down for that to be remotely viable. And we would have to greatly expand say rail infrastructure to make the lack of flying viable. It's possible, but it seems like a pipedream (pun intended) to me. I could see it in say 50 years after 2035. 2085? 2100? Maybe. Early in the 2100s seems more probable. Supply-side "leading the world" is not the way. We need to create the demand with the ability to provide the supply. Trying to force the transition before the technology is really there, though? It sounds like you will poison the well. Sustainable energy will be the new New Coke. People will be prejudiced against sustainable energy. That is a great way to make sure that it never happens. There is that Indian proverb that Pat Casey paraphrased all of the time, “Blessed is he who plants trees under whose shade he will never sit.” We all need to be moving that way. We can be one of the leaders, but we should not be the first one out on a limb. I think the US auto industry took this sort of approach in the 70s and 80s, and ended up getting schooled by more efficient Japanese cars. Some dinosaurs held on, but Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Chrysler…. Innovate. Be proactive, not reactive. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Feb 26, 2022 10:11:07 GMT -8
I’d just be happy if going solar on my home would actually have a positive ROI.
Even though I basically have the perfect roof for it, I only break even over the 25 year lifespan if electricity goes up by an average of 4% annually over that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Feb 26, 2022 11:13:17 GMT -8
I’d just be happy if going solar on my home would actually have a positive ROI. Even though I basically have the perfect roof for it, I only break even over the 25 year lifespan if electricity goes up by an average of 4% annually over that time. Ever talk to someone who has solar? The lifespan is relatively short and associated upkeep costs is crazy. They basically say the ONLY way to go is to lease, as maintenance is included. I've seen numerous articles where giant solar farms have been totally abandoned as obsolete and and to costly to update. They are left unattended and rotting away. There's too much to the "green" topic to even discuss in black and white. But, these short term "green plans" are simply political propaganda. Anyone with a brain knows you can generate movement to better/greener tech, but you're not getting to these crazy goals by 2030, 2035, 2050. Plus the anti oil/drilling, etc crowd seems to forget all the other uses for petroleum besides gasoline. The last time I looked, maybe 2016, I was amazed on how many things were petro related. At that time a 42 gal barrel of oil produced: -19.4 gal of gasoline -over half is used for over 6000 other products, from cosmetics, to soaps/shampoos/toothpaste, adhesives, tires for those EVs, golf balls, etc It's one of those topics that can go on and on, and typically many you talk to have very little idea what they are truly talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 26, 2022 13:18:52 GMT -8
I’d just be happy if going solar on my home would actually have a positive ROI. Even though I basically have the perfect roof for it, I only break even over the 25 year lifespan if electricity goes up by an average of 4% annually over that time. Ever talk to someone who has solar? The lifespan is relatively short and associated upkeep costs is crazy. They basically say the ONLY way to go is to lease, as maintenance is included. I've seen numerous articles where giant solar farms have been totally abandoned as obsolete and and to costly to update. They are left unattended and rotting away. There's too much to the "green" topic to even discuss in black and white. But, these short term "green plans" are simply political propaganda. Anyone with a brain knows you can generate movement to better/greener tech, but you're not getting to these crazy goals by 2030, 2035, 2050. Plus the anti oil/drilling, etc crowd seems to forget all the other uses for petroleum besides gasoline. The last time I looked, maybe 2016, I was amazed on how many things were petro related. At that time a 42 gal barrel of oil produced: -19.4 gal of gasoline -over half is used for over 6000 other products, from cosmetics, to soaps/shampoos/toothpaste, adhesives, tires for those EVs, golf balls, etc It's one of those topics that can go on and on, and typically many you talk to have very little idea what they are truly talking about. I have a solar lease. I love it. I haven't used a single kilowatt besides what I have produced from the panels yet, and it is great for the environment. Plus, in theory, it helps with resale. We will always need oil. Oil is used for asphalt creation and upkeep, lubrication (even electric cars use oil), plastics, synthetic rubber and tar. There would probably be other uses, if we reduced our petroleum usage. That is why active efforts to hamstring oil production and distribution seem so utterly stupid and nonsensical. It makes no sense in the short- or long-term. |
|
|
|
Post by beavheart on Feb 26, 2022 19:24:15 GMT -8
Someone needs to take Putin out. He's cornered way too much power in his country, no one to challenge him, and apparently has lost his mind. Totally insulated and bat schitt crazy is no way to run a country.
Way too many innocent people are going to pay the ultimate price for the psychotic rambling ambitions of one total d1ck. We could get dragged into this thing too if it gets too bad. WW3, all because one inadequate, petulant child has way too much power.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Feb 26, 2022 21:39:46 GMT -8
Someone needs to take Putin out. He's cornered way too much power in his country, no one to challenge him, and apparently has lost his mind. Totally insulated and bat schitt crazy is no way to run a country. Way too many innocent people are going to pay the ultimate price for the psychotic rambling ambitions of one total d1ck. We could get dragged into this thing too if it gets too bad. WW3, all because one inadequate, petulant child has way too much power. So true. And apparently he’s worth a couple of hundred billion. Sanctions don’t mean s%#t. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 26, 2022 21:55:38 GMT -8
Someone needs to take Putin out. He's cornered way too much power in his country, no one to challenge him, and apparently has lost his mind. Totally insulated and bat schitt crazy is no way to run a country. Way too many innocent people are going to pay the ultimate price for the psychotic rambling ambitions of one total d1ck. We could get dragged into this thing too if it gets too bad. WW3, all because one inadequate, petulant child has way too much power. So true. And apparently he’s worth a couple of hundred billion. Sanctions don’t mean s%#t. Sanctions mean that we all get to pay more, so that the Western democracies can appear to be doing something. If we were serious about sanctions, it would be energy and food. We will only trade energy for food. Nothing else. The sanctions aren't even what Iraq was hit with in the 90s. C'mon, man! If we are serious, we would hit Russia where it really hurts. We aren't serious. It is just saber-rattling at best. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Feb 27, 2022 10:32:36 GMT -8
Encouraging www.timesofisrael.com/ukrainian-forces-destroy-convoy-of-56-chechen-tanks-kill-general-near-kyiv-report/In this fight, the more dead Russian soldiers and the more Russian military widows and orphans the better. This war of conquest and occupation is their choice and thus, their fate. And it’s not going to end any time soon. Russia, of course, can stop the war and return home whenever they choose. And before anyone asks whether I have any sympathy for Russian soldiers and their families, I can answer that in one word. None.  |
|
