Check out some similar questions!

paraclete · Feb 12, 2019, 05:05 PM

Hey, this debate is nonsensicle there are ways of extracting clean energy, got plans of one myself, problem is the capital needed to research scaling it up. Yes, high speed rail can offset emissions from aircraft, buses, etc but the energy needed to run it comes from the grid. Where is all that innovation to avoid replacing "pollution" from one source with pollution from another. Refining lithium and other rare earths is a far greater problem than CO2, if CO2 is actually a problem. One day we all will have to lay aside the romance with the dinosaur SUV and make better choices, and stop underestimating the cost of fighting climate change. It is a zero sum game

jlisenbe · Feb 12, 2019, 10:53 PM

Refining lithium and other rare earths is a far greater problem than CO2, if CO2 is actually a problem. One day we all will have to lay aside the romance with the dinosaur SUV and make better choices, and stop underestimating the cost of fighting climate change. It is a zero sum game.

What??

paraclete · Feb 13, 2019, 03:15 PM

What do you mean "what"? You don't know how polluting the mining and refining of lithium used in these technologies is? You don't know that this CO2 debate is nonsense, the Earth is warming from other sources and has been for 10,000 years

jlisenbe · Feb 13, 2019, 03:36 PM

One day we all will have to lay aside the romance with the dinosaur SUV and make better choices,

Why would we do that, and what better choices are you referring to? If climate change in unrelated to man-made CO2, why wouldn't we drive large cars?

and stop underestimating the cost of fighting climate change.

Fight it how? If it's not man-made, then how will we fight it? For that matter, why should we fight it?

tomder55 · Feb 13, 2019, 04:07 PM

the Earth is warming from other sources and has been for 10,000 years

we have a winner ! The unusual part of the earth's climate was the ice ages .

paraclete · Feb 13, 2019, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If climate change in unrelated to man-made CO2, why wouldn't we drive large cars?

In case you haven't heard, oil is a finite resource. Plastics, a derivative of oil production is a serious pollutant, Of course since you are willing to rely on shale and other polluting sources it is not a problem for you. CO2 is a manufactured problem, climate change is a northern hemisphere problem. The major populations are in the northern hemisphere, the major polluters in all forms are in the northern hemisphere

Fight it how? If it's not man-made, then how will we fight it? For that matter, why should we fight it?

You can't, it is a fallacy, a leftist ideology

webcartkota · Feb 14, 2019, 02:16 AM

Thanks

jlisenbe · Feb 14, 2019, 02:37 AM

In case you haven't heard, oil is a finite resource. Plastics, a derivative of oil production is a serious pollutant, Of course since you are willing to rely on shale and other polluting sources it is not a problem for you. CO2 is a manufactured problem, climate change is a northern hemisphere problem. The major populations are in the northern hemisphere, the major polluters in all forms are in the northern hemisphere.

I see.

paraclete · Feb 14, 2019, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I see.

I really hope you do

talaniman · Feb 14, 2019, 05:40 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Australia

Historically–and until recent times–energy in Australia was sourced largely from coal and natural gas ^[1] however due to the increasing effects of global warming and human-induced climate change on the global environment, there has been a greater shift towards renewable energy such as solar power and wind power both in Australia and abroad.^[2][3] This in turn has led to a decrease in the demand of coal worldwide.^[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat...e_in_Australia

Glad your government is smarter than you about climate change. Mine too for that matter Clete.

jlisenbe · Feb 14, 2019, 05:51 AM

In case you haven't heard, oil is a finite resource.

Oil and natural gas reserves are steadily increasing, but yes, some day a number of decades from now the supply of oil will begin to be a problem.

Plastics, a derivative of oil production is a serious pollutant,

How is that related to not driving SUVs?

Of course since you are willing to rely on shale and other polluting sources

No serious pollution risks with fracking.

CO2 is a manufactured problem, climate change is a northern hemisphere problem.

Fair enough.

The major populations are in the northern hemisphere, the major polluters in all forms are in the northern hemisphere.

Polluters of what? If you are talking about CO2, then you also say it is not a problem, so I don't understand what that statement is about in regards to pollution.

tomder55 · Feb 14, 2019, 11:10 AM

C02 is not pollution. If it is then outlaw breathing . You know what C02 does ? It helps plants grow . Were the dinosaurs driving SUVs when the North Pole and Antarctica had a tropical forest ?

jlisenbe · Feb 14, 2019, 02:17 PM

C02 is not pollution. If it is then outlaw breathing . You know what C02 does ? It helps plants grow . Were the dinosaurs driving SUVs when the North Pole and Antarctica had a tropical forest ?

True, CO2 is not a pollutant in the sense that something like sulfuric acid is, but it is a greenhouse gas. Now it is debatable how much it contributes to any tendency towards global warming, but it doesn't strike me as a good idea to nearly double atmospheric CO2 as has taken place over the last fifty or so years.

I really don't care much about what people drive.

paraclete · Feb 14, 2019, 02:32 PM

There is no doubt I hit a raw nerve there

Athos · Feb 14, 2019, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

C02 is not pollution. If it is then outlaw breathing . You know what C02 does ? It helps plants grow . Were the dinosaurs driving SUVs when the North Pole and Antarctica had a tropical forest ?

The above is a good example how climate change/global warming is misunderstood by deniers.

The following may help.

There are some positive effects of global warming from increased CO₂ emissions. For example, improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives will far outweigh the positives. Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions. Species are already becoming extinct at a rate 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time, partially due to the effects of global warming and climate change.

paraclete · Feb 14, 2019, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Athos

The above is a good example how climate change/global warming is misunderstood by deniers.

The following may help.

There are some positive effects of global warming from increased CO₂ emissions. For example, improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives will far outweigh the positives. Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions. Species are already becoming extinct at a rate 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time, partially due to the effects of global warming and climate change.

So it is said without offering any other explanation, it may be that human exploitation of the environment is causing detrimental effects particularly deforestation however to focus on a single element, CO2, is ridiculous and dangerous. The greatest threat to the planet and its species is human population, instead of checking CO2 emissions we should be focused on checking the rise of human population

Athos · Feb 14, 2019, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

So it is said without offering any other explanation, it may be that human exploitation of the environment is causing detrimental effects particularly deforestation however to focus on a single element, CO2, is ridiculous and dangerous. The greatest threat to the planet and its species is human population, instead of checking CO2 emissions we should be focused on checking the rise of human population

There was no exclusive focus on CO2 - that was simply a response to the discussion. There's more than enough info out there for you to educate yourself.

paraclete · Feb 14, 2019, 11:54 PM

I was referring to the debate in general, CO2 is demonised

talaniman · Feb 15, 2019, 11:14 AM

For good reason Clete, but it is an easy distraction. Climate change is many things and most can be traced to human activity. Please be specific though, and I have an interest, into your ideas of population control. I think that's a part in managing resources, and we humans have a mandate to go forth and multiply, but does that apply to ALL humans, or just the handpicked chosen few?

CO2 is balanced in nature but destroy that balance there are equal and adverse consequences.

jlisenbe · Feb 15, 2019, 02:06 PM

I can see the problem with CO2, but to find a reasonable solution is a problem. Wind and solar have many more negatives (wind/sunlight are not constant, very expensive, still requires fossil fuel backup) than positives. Hydroelectric is already pretty much maxed out. Nuclear could be an option if we would grow a collective brain and use it properly. Conservation has some promise but not even close to doing the job by itself. Truth is, we are stuck with fossil fuels for several more decades. Sorry, AOC.