|
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
(Post 2947303)
Haha What facts they are just theories on both sides! Life in the Gulf Coast is great you should try it!
Also: 16. It's just a theory. |
Originally Posted by Aeirum
(Post 2946882)
No I haven’t stopped doing the above. But I’ve accepted the fact that there’s a problem. That’s step one. Currently we drive 30mpg vehicles and live in a modest home. We use all LED bulbs and are conscious about our usage. These were decisions made in the past ten years. We have started eating less red meat after we learned that it had the greatest impact on our environment, health, and wallet. The good news is that an occasional tomahawk steak tastes better when you eat them less frequently.
For me it will be relatively easy to greatly reduce my family’s footprint by going solar with net metering. Add an electric car to the mix and I will have sustained my life style while reducing my emissions AND I’ll save money in the long run. Due to an expanding family I’m currently in the process of buying a long term home in which I can expect to reach the break even point of 9 years. |
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
(Post 2947070)
Most of those throwing “socialism” around don’t even understand what it is—state ownership, to some degree, of the means of production. What they really want is an advanced welfare state, which currently the fad. Sweden, most of Scandinavia, has a highly developed welfare state funded by a free market business climate. State provides many forms of social insurance—generously funded college, state funding or provision of health care, child care. Many of these services are funded/sourced thru joint private/public measures.
Karl Marx is spelled with a K, as in ?German, not C as in English. And, he didn’t invent unions, look up trade guilds, Robert Owen, and London Trades Council. GF For more interesting reading I recommend Duck Duck Going Sweden Welfare Immigration. Seems you can have a welfare state or open borders. Not both. |
Originally Posted by Generic Pilot
(Post 2947484)
Which proves that you don't know what a fact or a theory is.
Also: 16. It's just a theory. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2947485)
To reach the 2.5 degree target, ALL carbon activity must stop.
It would also be vastly expensive, but could in theory be accomplished with total global chaos... if Everyone cooperates. I'd be curious as to what the science people would say about an "overshoot": accept the *practical* reality that we can't fix it in 30 years, but given 100 years should be able to reverse the process and get temps back down. How much damage would be undone? |
Originally Posted by Aeirum
(Post 2947474)
...at which point the damage will be done of course. You and your ilk are akin to a boat anchor and the storm is headed this way. I digress.
Besides, Americans care UNTIL it involves actual sacrifice. Only 34% said they would be very likely or somewhat likely to pay an extra $100 a year in taxes to help, including 25% of Republicans and 33% of independents, according to the poll. The results were similar for higher power bills. Only 38% said they would be likely to help by carpooling or using public transport, and 33% said they’d be willing to trade their car in for an electric vehicle, while 42% said they would be likely to install solar panels, according to the poll. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 2947552)
That's actually achievable. It would obviously involve vast reductions in fossil fuels but would also require at least some carbon capture.
It would also be vastly expensive, but could in theory be accomplished with total global chaos... if Everyone cooperates. I'd be curious as to what the science people would say about an "overshoot": accept the *practical* reality that we can't fix it in 30 years, but given 100 years should be able to reverse the process and get temps back down. How much damage would be undone? I'm curious to see how these natural fission batteries work in practice. The left is trying to shut them down, however.https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...n-Clean-Energy |
The ONLY efficient sources of energy are renewable. Non-renewable means they will end, and all of our resources poured into extracting coal/oil/gas will be a waste, once the resources aren't needed, or are depleted. We will have oil/gas/coal infrastructure, that was expensive, sitting idle...VERY inefficient.
Renewable means the sources of energy won't end, and any money we put into them will continue to pay dividends down the road. |
Originally Posted by atpcliff
(Post 2947661)
The ONLY efficient sources of energy are renewable. Non-renewable means they will end, and all of our resources poured into extracting coal/oil/gas will be a waste, once the resources aren't needed, or are depleted. We will have oil/gas/coal infrastructure, that was expensive, sitting idle...VERY inefficient.
Renewable means the sources of energy won't end, and any money we put into them will continue to pay dividends down the road. |
Originally Posted by atpcliff
(Post 2947661)
The ONLY efficient sources of energy are renewable. Non-renewable means they will end, and all of our resources poured into extracting coal/oil/gas will be a waste, once the resources aren't needed, or are depleted. We will have oil/gas/coal infrastructure, that was expensive, sitting idle...VERY inefficient.
Renewable means the sources of energy won't end, and any money we put into them will continue to pay dividends down the road. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:52 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands