COP27 climate summit

phill_nz

Super Anarchist
3,231
1,032
internet atm
so your basing your ' facts ' on the recorded profit that has been calculated / released by an accountant
you dont know much about business or corporate's do you
 

00seven

James "Grumpy" Bond
3,225
927
Blue marble
Do you have any idea the levels of starvation and suffering that will occur with even a couple of meters sea level rise? Orders of magnitude more than diverting resources to nuclear, hydrogen and sodium ion batteries while we still can.
The paucity of your understanding nearly defies comprehension.
Hey mate. See the attached photo from Borneo. These limestone pillars are well inland and up in the hills. If you go to the top you can find seashells. That's where the water once was and look at us now.

1669802150822.png
 

jzk

Super Anarchist
12,726
454
Do you have any idea the levels of starvation and suffering that will occur with even a couple of meters sea level rise? Orders of magnitude more than diverting resources to nuclear, hydrogen and sodium ion batteries while we still can.
The paucity of your understanding nearly defies comprehension.
Over what time period, genius?
 

jzk

Super Anarchist
12,726
454
Mmm, how old is the great barrier reef? How long to create such diversity? Will all species be able to move? What happens to the shoreline mangroves as the reef is broken by storm and not replaced?
From the article

It's more there is a little bit of hope that if we stabilise the environment some corals can spawn and regrow reefs further from the equator, not that it isn't ecological destruction of massive scale.
How do coral reefs do in warmer climates with more CO2?
 

jzk

Super Anarchist
12,726
454
If the US doesn't control other oil producers - then we aren't going to make fossil fuels disappear by ourselves.

If you can't provide some type of cite or proof that we're going to make fossil fuels disappear internal to the United States without having renewables in place, then you have no argument.

At this point, after numerous attempts to get clarification and some type of proof via link, I think it is safe to say that your assertions have no merit.
You keep making up shit. Strawman. While Biden hasn't yet "ended" fossil fuel use, he has made his opposition very clear.
 

jzk

Super Anarchist
12,726
454
I didn't know zero-dimensional analysis was possible.


So you're saying that everything that has the consequence of increasing the unit cost of ff translates to lost human lives and increased human suffering even if whatever has that consequence directly protects human life and reduces human suffering? And regardless of scale? So ff unit cost is directly correlated with human prosperity in all cases?

Lordy.
The correlation is pretty much that clear.
 

Grrr...

▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰ 100%
10,265
2,680
Detroit
You keep making up shit. Strawman. While Biden hasn't yet "ended" fossil fuel use, he has made his opposition very clear.
Alright. So we've moved the goalposts from "Biden is going to end fossil fuel" to "Biden has made his opposition to fossil fuels clear". That's also a far cry from 'Biden is going to shut down fossil fuel production and put people into poverty'.

Slowly phasing out fossil fuels in the United States over the next 20-50 years is an admirable goal. Joe Biden is not going to do it in the 2 years he has remaining. And we certainly can't predict who the next president will be and what course he will follow. All we know is that it is critical we move away from dependence on fossil fuels. This is critical both from a financial / resource standpoint as the supply runs out, and from an environmental standpoint to combat global warming.

Can you define what speed of moving away from fossil fuels is acceptable / unacceptable?
 

jzk

Super Anarchist
12,726
454
Alright. So we've moved the goalposts from "Biden is going to end fossil fuel" to "Biden has made his opposition to fossil fuels clear". That's also a far cry from 'Biden is going to shut down fossil fuel production and put people into poverty'.

Slowly phasing out fossil fuels in the United States over the next 20-50 years is an admirable goal. Joe Biden is not going to do it in the 2 years he has remaining. And we certainly can't predict who the next president will be and what course he will follow. All we know is that it is critical we move away from dependence on fossil fuels. This is critical both from a financial / resource standpoint as the supply runs out, and from an environmental standpoint to combat global warming.

Can you define what speed of moving away from fossil fuels is acceptable / unacceptable?
Biden said that he was going to end fossil fuel. I didn't say it. He did.



Why is it an "admirable goal" to phase out fossil fuel? Why do they need to be phased out at all? If something better comes along, people will chose that.

What fossil fuel supply issues are there in the US?
 

Grrr...

▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰ 100%
10,265
2,680
Detroit
Biden said that he was going to end fossil fuel. I didn't say it. He did.



Why is it an "admirable goal" to phase out fossil fuel? Why do they need to be phased out at all? If something better comes along, people will chose that.

What fossil fuel supply issues are there in the US?

Oh.

If you truthfully believe that the continued use of fossil fuels don't represent a program to the planet at all, then we are probably to far apart in our beliefs to every be able to reconcile.

I've watched the air quality be destroyed in places like LA. Or China. India. If you believe that's not a problem, then I suppose it's a bridge to far to even discuss.

 

veni vidi vici

Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
5,858
1,264
Oh.

If you truthfully believe that the continued use of fossil fuels don't represent a program to the planet at all, then we are probably to far apart in our beliefs to every be able to reconcile.

I've watched the air quality be destroyed in places like LA. Or China. India. If you believe that's not a problem, then I suppose it's a bridge to far to even discuss.

LA air quality is 100’s better today than it was in the 1960’s and that is with 100’s more vehicles today
 
  • Like
Reactions: jzk

jzk

Super Anarchist
12,726
454
Oh.

If you truthfully believe that the continued use of fossil fuels don't represent a program to the planet at all, then we are probably to far apart in our beliefs to every be able to reconcile.

I've watched the air quality be destroyed in places like LA. Or China. India. If you believe that's not a problem, then I suppose it's a bridge to far to even discuss.

Yeah, as countries develop, their air quality increases. We agree that we want good air quality. We agree that we should prevent real pollution. Stop it with the strawman arguments already.

But there is no "consensus" that continued fossil fuel use poses any kind of a "problem." And it certainly doesn't present a "problem" to the planet. A warmer planet is just fine. Why do you think the planet is better in an ice age?
 

veni vidi vici

Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
5,858
1,264
Largely due to governmental control. You know, limiting tailpipe emissions.

Just putting that out there for the next time someone bitches about "big" government.
No … there is a BIG difference
Big government comes after everything that the population is for in the beginning, Big Government refuses to go away afterwards
See The Great Society
See The Department of Education
See The Department of Energy
On and on
 

jzk

Super Anarchist
12,726
454
Largely due to governmental control. You know, limiting tailpipe emissions.

Just putting that out there for the next time someone bitches about "big" government.
We need a government for such matters. Police too.
 

Bus Driver

Bacon Quality Control Specialist
No … there is a BIG difference
Big government comes after everything that the population is for in the beginning, Big Government refuses to go away afterwards
See The Great Society
See The Department of Education
See The Department of Energy
On and on
So, the improvement of the air quality in LA is due to what? Unicorn farts? Did all of those cars just decide to release fewer polluting substances?

Face it - the Clean Air Act is to be credited. That came from the EPA. Which was created by Nixon.
 

jzk

Super Anarchist
12,726
454
So, the improvement of the air quality in LA is due to what? Unicorn farts? Did all of those cars just decide to release fewer polluting substances?

Face it - the Clean Air Act is to be credited. That came from the EPA. Which was created by Nixon.
We need an EPA. Pollution is an externality. We need an EPA for the same reason that socialism can't work. When people share something, a good percentage of them will trash it.
 

Bus Driver

Bacon Quality Control Specialist
We need an EPA. Pollution is an externality. We need an EPA for the same reason that socialism can't work. When people share something, a good percentage of them will trash it.
I like the way you took a program that is more along the lines of socialism than an unfettered capitalist system, and used it to attack socialism.

At least we agree the EPA is needed.
 
Last edited:




Top