Climate Realism

[Thiel]

Renewable Toxic Waste



If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?



The last few years have seen growing concern over what happens to solar panels at the end of their life. Consider the following statements:



The problem of solar panel disposal "will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment" because it "is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle."

"The reality is that there is a problem now, and it's only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago."

"Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater."

Were these statements made by the right-wing Heritage Foundation? Koch-funded global warming deniers? The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal?



None of the above. Rather, the quotes come from a senior Chinese solar official, a 40-year veteran of the U.S. solar industry, and research scientists with the German Stuttgart Institute for Photovoltaics.





With few environmental journalists willing to report on much of anything other than the good news about renewables, it's been left to environmental scientists and solar industry leaders to raise the alarm.



"I've been working in solar since 1976 and that's part of my guilt," the veteran solar developer told Solar Power World last year. "I've been involved with millions of solar panels going into the field, and now they're getting old."



The Trouble With Solar Waste



The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.



Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. "Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass," notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. "However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony."



Researchers with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) undertook a study for U.S. solar-owning utilities to plan for end-of-life and concluded that solar panel "disposal in "regular landfills [is] not recommended in case modules break and toxic materials leach into the soil" and so "disposal is potentially a major issue."



California is in the process of determining how to divert solar panels from landfills, which is where they currently go, at the end of their life.



California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), which is implementing the new regulations, held a meeting last August with solar and waste industry representatives to discuss how to deal with the issue of solar waste. At the meeting, the representatives from industry and DTSC all acknowledged how difficult it would be to test to determine whether a solar panel being removed would be classified as hazardous waste or not.



The DTSC described building a database where solar panels and their toxicity could be tracked by their model numbers, but it's not clear DTSC will do this.



"The theory behind the regulations is to make [disposal] less burdensome," explained Rick Brausch of DTSC. "Putting it as universal waste eliminates the testing requirement."



The fact that cadmium can be washed out of solar modules by rainwater is increasingly a concern for local environmentalists like the Concerned Citizens of Fawn Lake in Virginia, where a 6,350 acre solar farm to partly power Microsoft data centers is being proposed.



"We estimate there are 100,000 pounds of cadmium contained in the 1.8 million panels," Sean Fogarty of the group told me. "Leaching from broken panels damaged during natural events — hail storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. — and at decommissioning is a big concern."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/amp/?fbclid=IwAR3C-gP7H-c7Z1AImfMLdCTAIAfIGTGk2Y0d_MeAZWjKjjhvk7eg8m6_Cr0">https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 7eg8m6_Cr0">https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/amp/?fbclid=IwAR3C-gP7H-c7Z1AImfMLdCTAIAfIGTGk2Y0d_MeAZWjKjjhvk7eg8m6_Cr0

[Anonymous]

The weather in flooded parts of Ontario and Quebec cannot be blamed on climate change because the winter of 2018/2019 was not unusual.



By Lorne Gunter of Sun News Media



Extreme weather is not unusual

Spring flooding in Canada is nothing new and unlikely the result of climate change



Have you ever heard of "Duff's Ditch?"



Technically it's called the Red River Floodway (or Canal de derivation de la riviere Rouge). It's a 47-kilometre-long manmade channel that redirects floodwaters from the Red River around Winnipeg.



The floodway was constructed after disastrous floods in the 1950s left large sections of Winnipeg underwater from spring runoff in the Red River basin.



It was nicknamed for Manitoba Premier Duff Roblin, whose Progressive Conservative government built it in the 1960s. It was a sarcastic nickname thought up by opponents of its construction who felt the $600-million cost (in today's dollars) made the channel a white elephant.



Nonetheless, in every subsequent Red River flood, the ditch has managed to keep the Manitoba capital reasonably dry and has cumulatively saved an estimated $40 billion in flood damage.



Why this lesson in the history of Prairie water diversion projects? Because it is important to remember that spring flooding in Canada is nothing new.



This weekend, as residents in parts of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have been evacuated in advance of overflowing rivers, and communities such as Ottawa and Montreal have declared states of emergency, our eco-obsessed prime minister pontificated that such extreme weather is Canada's "new reality" brought on by climate change.



But there's nothing new about it, which also means it is unlikely such flooding is the result of climate change. Trudeau, who is a shallow, fashionable thinker, sees every unexpected cloudbank as a sign of environmental catastrophe requiring a new carbon tax or a stack of economy-choking regulations and laws.



However, this is Canada. It's spring. It's gonna flood somewhere. Maybe several somewheres.



There is no statistical proof that there are more floods than ever before or that the floods are more devastating. There are no more hurricanes or tornados or droughts.



Yes, some years there are more bouts of extreme weather than usual in some places. But if we are supposed to fear climate change because it is "global," then extreme weather events should also be global (and probably increasing), but they're not.



For instance, 2005 was a horrific year for hurricanes. There were so many storms, weather authorities ran out of names for them all and began using letters from the Greek alphabet.



But for nearly a decade after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and others slammed into the U.S., major hurricane (Category 4 or higher) made landfall there.



And while we're speaking of New Orleans and the Mississippi, which bore the brunt of Katrina's damage, keep in mind the first levees designed to protect the city from the annual Mississippi floods were constructed in 1717 — 302 years ago.



There weren't a lot of SUVS idling in driveways to cause carbon emissions back then.



Some years there are more deadly twisters. But other years there are fewer than normal. That's how averages are calculated.



Yes, for four years recently Southern California had a terrible drought. But Socal has often had terrible, multi-year droughts in the past. That's why state and local governments built huge diversion projects to bring water from the Sierra mountains to Los Angeles and the farms of the San Fernando Valley.



(By the way, the snowpack on the Sierras this spring is 160 per cent of normal. There will be no dry reservoirs this summer.)



The greatest flood in Canadian history was probably the Red River flood of 1826 — yes, 1826. But you probably didn't hear much about it because there were no allnews channels back then to send eager young reporters (or prime ministers) to the site to give us breathless reports about how we must control our emissions or this kind of disaster will be more common in the future.

[Anonymous]

I am getting really tired of scumbag politicians milking floods tornados, hurricanes and forest fires for political gain.



By Mark Bonokoski of Sun News Media



CLIMATE OF FEAR

Progressive plaudits as Ottawa declares emergency



Our nation's capital, always in search of the latest in political progressivism, has now joined the sky-is-dying crowd by having its city council officially declare Ottawa to be in a climate emergency.



This is in the nick of time, of course, but not because of the serious flooding currently ravaging the region, but because our country's climate conscience Environment Minister Catherine Mckenna keeps telling us that the planet has only 12 years left to sustain life.



There is no doubt the outlying 'burbs of Ottawa are again fending off rising flood waters because of a very snowy winter followed by a very rainy spring, but that is not the big-picture stuff, although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week while filling sandbags for a photo-op that the current crisis is a direct result of climate change. So, this wasn't just a freak year. This was the new norm.



No, the real big-picture stuff is Mckenna's doomsday scenario that has her believing and preaching we'll all be snuffed out by 2029 unless critical changes are made to ensure our planet's orbit continues with us still aboard.



In Ontario, the successive Liberal governments of Dalton Mcguinty and Kathleen Wynne bragged about how they had at least saved their own province by shutting down all coal-fired power generation, tossing $2 billion down the toilet to cancel two gas-fired power plants, and spending multi-billions more on green-energy projects backed by influential friends who saw renewable energy as their licence to print money.



And they weren't far wrong. Lots of former backroom



types got rich, but it wasn't the beleaguered taxpayer, because it was he who found himself having to choose between feeding his family or heating his home, and not how he was going to count all the money rolling in.



Or has everyone forgotten those stories? A lot of ink was spilled to report them, and a lot of fossil-fuel petrol was burned by television outlets dashing off to Smalltown, Ont., for first-hand coverage of outraged citizens living through trying times in homes without heat or light.



So, what good has green energy done for Ontario?



[size=150]Renewable energy, despite costing billions of taxpayer dollars, is the source of less than 10% of Ontario's electricity. Those vast fields of solar panels tilted towards the sun? Less than 2%.

[/size]

Wind power, towering winged turbines that also drive countless nearby residents crazy with mysterious brain worms? Less than 8%.



A little over 90% of Ontario's power sources — from nuclear plants to hydro dams — are environmentally friendly and without emissions.



Yet our nation's capital has declared itself to be in the midst of a climate emergency, and spare us all if we sit idly by.



Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson was quick to point out that council's climate emergency declaration is "no empty gesture," although it came days prior to calling a real state of emergency over extreme flooding and getting assistance from 400 members of the armed forces to help cope with the crisis.



No, along with its specific climate emergency declaration, the city will prove it is "no empty gesture" by ponying up $250,000 out of its annual Hydro One dividend to do ... what?



Why, to study the city moving to renewable energy, of course.



As if it had suddenly become a smart idea.

[Anonymous]

Every prog politician in Canada is blaming all the flooding on climate change, but that is very dishonest.

About 70 per cent to 80 per cent of a watershed's area is drained by thousands of very small waterbodies, each one draining small areas. These small waterbodies – wetlands, swales, springs – are largely unmapped and unregulated. Many flow only in spring, and these capillaries of the land provide the true capacity of the watershed to store and pass water to rivers. The frequency and magnitude of flows in the receiving rivers are a direct reflection of the rate and timing of flows from these waterbodies.



In the 1960s, we built dams to capture these flows and also established watershed-based authorities to manage flood risk to populated areas. This strategy provided an effective Band-Aid, but it wasn't able to capture the evolution of how we live: Expanded upstream urbanization and agricultural intensification almost everywhere have increased the rate and volume of water entering rivers. Many rivers have now surpassed their capacity to process these flows.



This has been exacerbated by economic pressures forcing farmers to increase the yields from limited acreage. That has caused them to drain or bury areas that have historically been too wet to till. Urbanization also hardens and covers the land, making it harder for water to drain through it. The flood control plans that have largely worked for the past 30 years are no longer working because that flood forecasting doesn't consider the impact of these largely undocumented actions by farmers and developers.



The root of Canada's flooding issue is that there is no comprehensive strategy to manage these small waterbodies, which we've been altering for a long time. Generally, landowners can alter the waterbodies with impunity, and while there are a few programs that use private funds to reward landowners for altering them responsibly, there are few disincentives for land uses that increase flood risk downstream. It's a classic case of the tragedy of the commons: When the gains are obtained by few and the costs are shared by many, people will generally opt for the short-term profit.



Some municipalities across the country have adopted policies or levies to begin to address this issue. In the Toronto and Ottawa regions, headwater policies are now in place to manage how urban development affects these systems. Right now, if flow patterns on lands being developed are already damaged, developers only need to replicate those damaged states of flows when their construction work is finished, without consideration of the flood risk downstream. In the Waterloo region, a stormwater levy program has been instituted that reflects a property's contribution to stormwater, meaning that landowners pay for their contribution to stormwater; properties with penetrable soils or pavements or with means to store water would pay a lower levy. But the effectiveness of both these programs is limited because the policies are only applied to urban lands; farming and aggregates, for example, are not considered, so their ultimate impact on watershed flood control is diminished.



What we need to tackle the flooding problem is a comprehensive user-pay program that would assess the property owner's contribution to flood protection within their watershed. A property with wetlands and other water storage areas is rewarded with lower levies; those properties that increase risk pay more. This user-pay system could eventually assess even more valued features, including rare species habitat protection and wildlife corridors, to create an incentive toward ecohealth

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-climate-change-is-a-major-factor-in-flooding-but-its-not-the-only/">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... -the-only/">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-climate-change-is-a-major-factor-in-flooding-but-its-not-the-only/

[Anonymous]

Every prog politician in Canada is blaming all the flooding on climate change, but that is very dishonest.

About 70 per cent to 80 per cent of a watershed's area is drained by thousands of very small waterbodies, each one draining small areas. These small waterbodies – wetlands, swales, springs – are largely unmapped and unregulated. Many flow only in spring, and these capillaries of the land provide the true capacity of the watershed to store and pass water to rivers. The frequency and magnitude of flows in the receiving rivers are a direct reflection of the rate and timing of flows from these waterbodies.



In the 1960s, we built dams to capture these flows and also established watershed-based authorities to manage flood risk to populated areas. This strategy provided an effective Band-Aid, but it wasn't able to capture the evolution of how we live: Expanded upstream urbanization and agricultural intensification almost everywhere have increased the rate and volume of water entering rivers. Many rivers have now surpassed their capacity to process these flows.



This has been exacerbated by economic pressures forcing farmers to increase the yields from limited acreage. That has caused them to drain or bury areas that have historically been too wet to till. Urbanization also hardens and covers the land, making it harder for water to drain through it. The flood control plans that have largely worked for the past 30 years are no longer working because that flood forecasting doesn't consider the impact of these largely undocumented actions by farmers and developers.



The root of Canada's flooding issue is that there is no comprehensive strategy to manage these small waterbodies, which we've been altering for a long time. Generally, landowners can alter the waterbodies with impunity, and while there are a few programs that use private funds to reward landowners for altering them responsibly, there are few disincentives for land uses that increase flood risk downstream. It's a classic case of the tragedy of the commons: When the gains are obtained by few and the costs are shared by many, people will generally opt for the short-term profit.



Some municipalities across the country have adopted policies or levies to begin to address this issue. In the Toronto and Ottawa regions, headwater policies are now in place to manage how urban development affects these systems. Right now, if flow patterns on lands being developed are already damaged, developers only need to replicate those damaged states of flows when their construction work is finished, without consideration of the flood risk downstream. In the Waterloo region, a stormwater levy program has been instituted that reflects a property's contribution to stormwater, meaning that landowners pay for their contribution to stormwater; properties with penetrable soils or pavements or with means to store water would pay a lower levy. But the effectiveness of both these programs is limited because the policies are only applied to urban lands; farming and aggregates, for example, are not considered, so their ultimate impact on watershed flood control is diminished.



What we need to tackle the flooding problem is a comprehensive user-pay program that would assess the property owner's contribution to flood protection within their watershed. A property with wetlands and other water storage areas is rewarded with lower levies; those properties that increase risk pay more. This user-pay system could eventually assess even more valued features, including rare species habitat protection and wildlife corridors, to create an incentive toward ecohealth

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-climate-change-is-a-major-factor-in-flooding-but-its-not-the-only/">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... -the-only/">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-climate-change-is-a-major-factor-in-flooding-but-its-not-the-only/

A dishonest Canadian politician?? Brother, tell me it's not true.



Good article.

[Anonymous]

If all that flooding in Eastern Canada was caused by climate change the weather would have to have been very different this year, but it wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Calgary researchers turn greenhouse gases into carbon fibre



A researcher at the University of Calgary says she has developed a method of turning greenhouse gases into valuable carbon nanofibres.



Mina Zarabian came up with the concept while completing her doctorate in chemical and petroleum engineering at the university's Schulich School of Engineering.



Zarabian and her professor, Pedro Pereira Almao, worked together to come up with the technique.



The nanofibres have multiple industrial uses that included replacing metal in cars and airplanes, wind turbines, battery manufacturing and construction.



"This is a process that turns natural gas and CO2, carbon dioxide, both known as greenhouse gases, into solid carbon nanofibres which can be sold in a brick or powder for a lot of industries that utilize them," Zarabian said during a tour of her lab.



"It can be used everywhere that you can imagine ... transportation vehicles to make them lighter and more durable so they can be more fuel efficient."



The transformation moved from its theoretical beginnings in the chemistry lab to a working model at the university.



ines from tanks of carbon dioxide and methane feed into a small chamber the size of a balloon. Once it's exposed to extreme heat, black powdery residue appears in a glass tube. A piece of metal in the tube acts as a catalyst.



"It's the secret sauce of our process," said Zarabian. "The good thing is it's not something very magical or expensive or platinum or some super-fancy expensive metal. It's a normal metal which can be found anywhere with a high amount of resources."



Carbon fibres are expensive and currently cost about $100 per kilogram, she said.



Zarabian would like to see the technology eventually installed at natural gas power plants.

https://boom1019.com/news/5253283/calgary-researchers-turn-greenhouse-gases-into-carbon-fibre/">https://boom1019.com/news/5253283/calga ... bon-fibre/">https://boom1019.com/news/5253283/calgary-researchers-turn-greenhouse-gases-into-carbon-fibre/



This is a win-win-win situation. It lowers C02 emissions, it creates a commercial use for C02 and reduces our use of metals used in steel production. But, Trudeau thinks the best way is to make poor people decide whether they want to buy groceries or heat their homes.

[Anonymous]

Calgary researchers turn greenhouse gases into carbon fibre



A researcher at the University of Calgary says she has developed a method of turning greenhouse gases into valuable carbon nanofibres.



Mina Zarabian came up with the concept while completing her doctorate in chemical and petroleum engineering at the university's Schulich School of Engineering.



Zarabian and her professor, Pedro Pereira Almao, worked together to come up with the technique.



The nanofibres have multiple industrial uses that included replacing metal in cars and airplanes, wind turbines, battery manufacturing and construction.



"This is a process that turns natural gas and CO2, carbon dioxide, both known as greenhouse gases, into solid carbon nanofibres which can be sold in a brick or powder for a lot of industries that utilize them," Zarabian said during a tour of her lab.



"It can be used everywhere that you can imagine ... transportation vehicles to make them lighter and more durable so they can be more fuel efficient."



The transformation moved from its theoretical beginnings in the chemistry lab to a working model at the university.



ines from tanks of carbon dioxide and methane feed into a small chamber the size of a balloon. Once it's exposed to extreme heat, black powdery residue appears in a glass tube. A piece of metal in the tube acts as a catalyst.



"It's the secret sauce of our process," said Zarabian. "The good thing is it's not something very magical or expensive or platinum or some super-fancy expensive metal. It's a normal metal which can be found anywhere with a high amount of resources."



Carbon fibres are expensive and currently cost about $100 per kilogram, she said.



Zarabian would like to see the technology eventually installed at natural gas power plants.

https://boom1019.com/news/5253283/calgary-researchers-turn-greenhouse-gases-into-carbon-fibre/">https://boom1019.com/news/5253283/calga ... bon-fibre/">https://boom1019.com/news/5253283/calgary-researchers-turn-greenhouse-gases-into-carbon-fibre/



This is a win-win-win situation. It lowers C02 emissions, it creates a commercial use for C02 and reduces our use of metals used in steel production. But, Trudeau thinks the best way is to make poor people decide whether they want to buy groceries or heat their homes.

Suzuki should stick to the mating habits of fruit flies. He knows sweet fuck all about climate science and he doesn't want to learn either.



Just a side note, David Suzuki is one of the nastiest, egotistical assholes I've ever had the misfortune to meet.

[Anonymous]

Calgary researchers turn greenhouse gases into carbon fibre



A researcher at the University of Calgary says she has developed a method of turning greenhouse gases into valuable carbon nanofibres.



Mina Zarabian came up with the concept while completing her doctorate in chemical and petroleum engineering at the university's Schulich School of Engineering.



Zarabian and her professor, Pedro Pereira Almao, worked together to come up with the technique.



The nanofibres have multiple industrial uses that included replacing metal in cars and airplanes, wind turbines, battery manufacturing and construction.



"This is a process that turns natural gas and CO2, carbon dioxide, both known as greenhouse gases, into solid carbon nanofibres which can be sold in a brick or powder for a lot of industries that utilize them," Zarabian said during a tour of her lab.



"It can be used everywhere that you can imagine ... transportation vehicles to make them lighter and more durable so they can be more fuel efficient."



The transformation moved from its theoretical beginnings in the chemistry lab to a working model at the university.



ines from tanks of carbon dioxide and methane feed into a small chamber the size of a balloon. Once it's exposed to extreme heat, black powdery residue appears in a glass tube. A piece of metal in the tube acts as a catalyst.



"It's the secret sauce of our process," said Zarabian. "The good thing is it's not something very magical or expensive or platinum or some super-fancy expensive metal. It's a normal metal which can be found anywhere with a high amount of resources."



Carbon fibres are expensive and currently cost about $100 per kilogram, she said.



Zarabian would like to see the technology eventually installed at natural gas power plants.

https://boom1019.com/news/5253283/calgary-researchers-turn-greenhouse-gases-into-carbon-fibre/">https://boom1019.com/news/5253283/calga ... bon-fibre/">https://boom1019.com/news/5253283/calgary-researchers-turn-greenhouse-gases-into-carbon-fibre/



This is a win-win-win situation. It lowers C02 emissions, it creates a commercial use for C02 and reduces our use of metals used in steel production. But, Trudeau thinks the best way is to make poor people decide whether they want to buy groceries or heat their homes.

Suzuki should stick to the mating habits of fruit flies. He knows sweet fuck all about climate science and he doesn't want to learn either.



Just a side note, David Suzuki is one of the nastiest, egotistical assholes I've ever had the misfortune to meet.

I believe that.

[Anonymous]

I don't know what David Suzuki knows about climate science..



But, I do know he doesn't live like someone that believe man made C02 emissions are an existential threat.

[Anonymous]

After five years, city of Medicine Hat gives up on pricey solar power.



Low price of natural gas made solar power a too-pricey proposition





A concentrated solar thermal (CST) plant seemed like a good idea at one time — circa 2009 — but this week, the city of Medicine Hat pointed its solar panels down, shuttering the facility after five years of operation.



Collin Gallant, a reporter at the Medicine Hat News, said Wednesday in an interview with the Calgary Eyeopener that the plant wasn't a bad idea gone wrong, but rather a victim of persistently low natural gas prices.



"Back when this was thought up as an energy savings program, natural gas was about seven times more expensive than it is today," Gallant said.



A concentrated solar thermal (CST) plant seemed like a good idea at one time — circa 2009 — but this week, the city of Medicine Hat pointed its solar panels down, shuttering the facility after five years of operation.



Collin Gallant, a reporter at the Medicine Hat News, said Wednesday in an interview with the Calgary Eyeopener that the plant wasn't a bad idea gone wrong, but rather a victim of persistently low natural gas prices.



"Back when this was thought up as an energy savings program, natural gas was about seven times more expensive than it is today," Gallant said.



"The idea behind this project is helping to save gas — some day we will run out of it," Clugston said.



Even back then, Clugston acknowledged that the plant made no financial sense because it produced only one megawatt of electricity on an ideal summer day, and the city was not as flush with cash in 2014 when it opened as in 2009 when it launched the project.



The challenge is that natural gas prices have remained stubbornly low and there's no timetable that sees them rising to a level that would make operating the plant economically feasible in the near term, he added.



"I think they said that at the size it is now it would take gas costs of about $19 or ... $20 a gigajoule to to make it economical again," Gallant said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/solar-thermal-power-plant-mothballed-medicine-hat-1.5137428">https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.5137428">https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/solar-thermal-power-plant-mothballed-medicine-hat-1.5137428



Smart jurisdictions use the cheapest and most abundant source of power distribution that's available. It doesn't matter if it's hydro, natural gas,  coal, geothermal or nuclear. Use what's most readily available and deliver power in a environmentally responsible way.



Medicine Hat sits on vast reserves of cheap, abundant natural gas that can be produced in an environmentally sound way. And new technologies means they keep finding more natural gas pushing prices even lower.

[Wazzzup]

yeah solar is too pricey.  Wind power is too intermittent and unreliable.  Nuclear is good, but if it goes wrong it really goes wrong, and disposing of dangerous highly toxic nuclear waste is a big problem.



As yet there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels.

[Wazzzup]

[size=150]Wazzzups--Things everyone should know about so-called climate change[/size]



Is there global warming?



The idea that greenhouse gases trap sunlight and increase heat is a scientific fact in a greenhouse.  BUT the earth is much more complex than a greenhouse.



The earth has been warmer and cooler than now MANY times before



The earth has been much warmer and much colder many times before man ever fired up a combustion engine so.  Climate change is normal and expected.  Climate NEVER stays the same, it ALWAYS goes up or down (warmer or colder)



Are humans causing global warming?



The earth has warmed .7 to .9 degrees in the last hundred years.  Had man not existed would it have warmed?  No one knows.  If humans are causing it how much are they causing it?  95%? 5%? Somewhere in between?  No one knows.  (and if they say they know they are lying)



Can Global warming scientists be trusted?



No.  Most of them get government grant money to say the earth is warming.  They are also mostly crusaders on a mission.  From what I have seen every one of their climate models does not predict temperature changes accurately (they all over predict) and there is more than ample evidence that they frequently lie about the data in order to get the results they want.



So IF (and that's a big IF) human made global warming is happening what can be done?



Carbon Taxes are a sham--Most governments that impose carbon taxes aren't even applying them to the environment.  They are just spending them like other taxes.



Electric cars are a sham--research shows that in order to break even a battery powered car must be driven at least 80,000 to 90,000 miles just to be the equivalent of a gas powered car. This is because fossil fuels need to be burned to make the batteries, and fossil fuels must be burned to charge the batteries.



Alternative energies-- nuclear energy is a good non carbon source of energy, but if something goes wrong it goes really wrong, also nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous.  Other things like wind don't work well and are intermittent.  Solar cells are enormously expensive.



So what would actually make a difference?  (things that would actually work)



Cut back--If you really want to save the earth- get rid of your car, don't travel by air, stop using electricity, and stop heating and air conditioning your home.  Any takers?  Didn't think so.



Develop new technologies--Trying to develop new technologies to deal with the problem is a good idea.  IF (and that's a big IF again) there is man made global warming we may develop new technology to deal with it.  Viable alternative energy R&D is a good idea.  Another idea would be finding alternative solutions--like perhaps a way to cap active volcanoes.

[Anonymous]

[size=150]Wazzzups--Things everyone should know about so-called climate change[/size]



Is there global warming?



The idea that greenhouse gases trap sunlight and increase heat is a scientific fact in a greenhouse.  BUT the earth is much more complex than a greenhouse.



The earth has been warmer and cooler than now MANY times before



The earth has been much warmer and much colder many times before man ever fired up a combustion engine so.  Climate change is normal and expected.  Climate NEVER stays the same, it ALWAYS goes up or down (warmer or colder)



Are humans causing global warming?



The earth has warmed .7 to .9 degrees in the last hundred years.  Had man not existed would it have warmed?  No one knows.  If humans are causing it how much are they causing it?  95%? 5%? Somewhere in between?  No one knows.  (and if they say they know they are lying)



Can Global warming scientists be trusted?



No.  Most of them get government grant money to say the earth is warming.  They are also mostly crusaders on a mission.  From what I have seen every one of their climate models does not predict temperature changes accurately (they all over predict) and there is more than ample evidence that they frequently lie about the data in order to get the results they want.



So IF (and that's a big IF) human made global warming is happening what can be done?



Carbon Taxes are a sham--Most governments that impose carbon taxes aren't even applying them to the environment.  They are just spending them like other taxes.



Electric cars are a sham--research shows that in order to break even a battery powered car must be driven at least 80,000 to 90,000 miles just to be the equivalent of a gas powered car. This is because fossil fuels need to be burned to make the batteries, and fossil fuels must be burned to charge the batteries.



Alternative energies-- nuclear energy is a good non carbon source of energy, but if something goes wrong it goes really wrong, also nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous.  Other things like wind don't work well and are intermittent.  Solar cells are enormously expensive.



So what would actually make a difference?  (things that would actually work)



Cut back--If you really want to save the earth- get rid of your car, don't travel by air, stop using electricity, and stop heating and air conditioning your home.  Any takers?  Didn't think so.



Develop new technologies--Trying to develop new technologies to deal with the problem is a good idea.  IF (and that's a big IF again) there is man made global warming we may develop new technology to deal with it.  Viable alternative energy R&D is a good idea.  Another idea would be finding alternative solutions--like perhaps a way to cap active volcanoes.



Capping Volcanoes--According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.



Capping 1/8th of the earths volcanoes would be the equivalent of humans completely ceasing use of ALL fossil fuel energy.

The brother nails it. ac_drinks

[Wazzzup]

[size=150]Wazzzups--Things everyone should know about so-called climate change[/size]



Is there global warming?



The idea that greenhouse gases trap sunlight and increase heat is a scientific fact in a greenhouse.  BUT the earth is much more complex than a greenhouse.



The earth has been warmer and cooler than now MANY times before



The earth has been much warmer and much colder many times before man ever fired up a combustion engine so.  Climate change is normal and expected.  Climate NEVER stays the same, it ALWAYS goes up or down (warmer or colder)



Are humans causing global warming?



The earth has warmed .7 to .9 degrees in the last hundred years.  Had man not existed would it have warmed?  No one knows.  If humans are causing it how much are they causing it?  95%? 5%? Somewhere in between?  No one knows.  (and if they say they know they are lying)



Can Global warming scientists be trusted?



No.  Most of them get government grant money to say the earth is warming.  They are also mostly crusaders on a mission.  From what I have seen every one of their climate models does not predict temperature changes accurately (they all over predict) and there is more than ample evidence that they frequently lie about the data in order to get the results they want.



So IF (and that's a big IF) human made global warming is happening what can be done?



Carbon Taxes are a sham--Most governments that impose carbon taxes aren't even applying them to the environment.  They are just spending them like other taxes.



Electric cars are a sham--research shows that in order to break even a battery powered car must be driven at least 80,000 to 90,000 miles just to be the equivalent of a gas powered car. This is because fossil fuels need to be burned to make the batteries, and fossil fuels must be burned to charge the batteries.



Alternative energies-- nuclear energy is a good non carbon source of energy, but if something goes wrong it goes really wrong, also nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous.  Other things like wind don't work well and are intermittent.  Solar cells are enormously expensive.



So what would actually make a difference?  (things that would actually work)



Cut back--If you really want to save the earth- get rid of your car, don't travel by air, stop using electricity, and stop heating and air conditioning your home.  Any takers?  Didn't think so.



Develop new technologies--Trying to develop new technologies to deal with the problem is a good idea.  IF (and that's a big IF again) there is man made global warming we may develop new technology to deal with it.  Viable alternative energy R&D is a good idea.  Another idea would be finding alternative solutions--like perhaps a way to cap active volcanoes.



Capping Volcanoes--According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.



Capping 1/8th of the earths volcanoes would be the equivalent of humans completely ceasing use of ALL fossil fuel energy.

The brother nails it. ac_drinks

Thanks Herman ac_drinks