Federal scientists say lack of sea ice off Alaska changing walrus behavior

[jdhpa]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Nuclear power generation in an earthquake-prone region is not a particularly smart idea.

If human-induced global warming is real, changing the contents of the atmosphere isn't a great idea either. We can only choose from the options available, they all have their drawbacks. For someone who strongly believes global warming is real and an imminent threat, do they support switching to nuclear power generation? If not, what realistic alternative do they espouse?

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by jdhpa

If human-induced global warming is real, changing the contents of the atmosphere isn't a great idea either. We can only choose from the options available, they all have their drawbacks. For someone who strongly believes global warming is real and an imminent threat, do they support switching to nuclear power generation? If not, what realistic alternative do they espouse?

They only have a plan of stopping all productions of anything, and coming up with goofy charges for Carbon Credit and now they are working on CO2 credit I would assume.

They don't have any real plans other than we all die and go away and let the forest fires, volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, floods, lightning, rain, tidal waves, etc., etc. do what they do, destroy the planet naturally through erosion!

If we don't die off, then we should adopt cute kittens and puppies.

The environmentalist may mean well, but they don't really think their choices though very well. They want Eco friendly cars that cost more that standard cars, but they also create very toxic byproducts of their use.

Solar panels are a very toxic item to create as well, have a limited life span and cost more to produce power than conventional means. They do have a niche, like at my cabin, I use them to charge my batteries and keep them charged so they don't freeze up.

There is a way to use resources and also take care of our environment, but you really have to step back and look at the big picture.

We have the Pebble mine out in Western Alaska, they want to stop it from going into production. The claim is it will kill off all the salmon runs. I don't believe that, but the salmon runs are already declining from the some 70,000+ miles a night of nets set out every night from foreign ships. The area the mine is going to be in is very pretty, has lots of game and other things as well, but other than fishing, it has little else except the state money that the area gets from the oil industry. Well if the oil pipeline stop pumping in a few years, that money will stop and that region will be hit hard when the fish stop coming in the numbers they have had in the past. The mine may be a saving grace they haven't even thought about. Besides, most of the money from fishing heads south with the snow, the state and federal money will dry up as well shortly from a host of reasons. Not going to be pretty there at all.

They pulled all this crap before they built the Trans Alaska Pipeline, and it was built in spite of them after a few years of court battles, fake oil shortages and other trivia. But the doom never happened and now they get grants from the oil companies trying to be on their good side.

Nope, the environmental groups don't really have any solutions that are viable, maybe on a small scale in their backyard, but they don't tell you the effort involved either.