Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As an environmentalist, you just won. Trump was the environmentalist candidate in the election. He believes in limited immigration, and immigration is the number-one issue for environmentalism.
Yes and no. I don't think it's immigration per se, but here is where an environmentalist might win:
Trump wants to bring back production and manufacturing stateside. Essentially he wants to contract trade and international growth. That means less stuff is being shipped and flown around the globe. Stupid crazy ideas like Washington apples being sent to Asia to be turned into applesauce before being packaged and sent back to the US will hopefully stop... maybe Washington applesauce using Washington apples will be processed in... Washington! Wow... what a concept
Limiting immigration means less people moving around too. So yeah, I'm on board with that, but probably not for the same reason as Trump supporters.
Less transportation of product or people means less hydrocarbons burning. For Trump however it's about national and economic security.
I assure you if climate change happens like some of the predictions it will also affect national and economic security. But that's not how Trump sees it right now. It's about ISIS and jobs.
Yes and no. I don't think it's immigration per se, but here is where an environmentalist might win:
The more people we have in this country illegal or not requires more housing, more electricity, more transportation, more vehicles, more schools, etc. The legal immigrants coming into this country will have significant impact in the decades to come let alone when you factor in the illegal, one of the reasons for that is they typically have very large families. Another issue is we are usually taking more educated people when they legally immigrate here, that may be great for us bit so not great for the country losing them. The conditions in those countries will continue to stagnate if you are robbing them of their doctors, scientist and business people. That would include environmental conditions
While the numbers in this video have been criticized for being inflated even if they are a little it's still a huge problem going forward, as noted you are going to make a very little dent in these populations outside of the US.
Trump wants to bring back production and manufacturing stateside. Essentially he wants to contract trade and international growth. That means less stuff is being shipped and flown around the globe. Stupid crazy ideas like Washington apples being sent to Asia to be turned into applesauce before being packaged and sent back to the US will hopefully stop... maybe Washington applesauce using Washington apples will be processed in... Washington! Wow... what a concept
Before jumping to conclusions understand there is issues with transporting goods that may not be so obvious. I delivered coal to residential homes up until about 2006 and the biggest inefficiency in my operation was coming back empty. I could of easily expanded into nearby states because I provided a unique service not readily available outside of my area but as the distances grew with the empty truck the costs grew to be too much.
Just speculation but what may be happening here is they have a lot ships coming into those ports and going back empty, the transportation to get them overseas would be cheap. They ship them overseas for processing, a portion of it is returned to the US probably to a more populated area like LA. While this may be longer trip from China to LA it's still has to be transported there if they are going from Washington to LA. If the bulk of that product is staying overseas for their consumption this is really not that inefficient and that is before you consider what types of ships are being used. The massive cargo carriers moving across the seas are much more efficient than the smaller ones that may be moving from one US port to another.
Climate change has occurred naturally since the world began....the idea that it is man made is a total hoax championed by socialist/big government types that want to tax everything that runs in the name of saving the planet.
Republicans breath the same air and drink the same water that you do.The idea that they would deliberately allow pollution is ridiculous.
If very little of the mercury from US sources is deposited in the US and none of it is coming from overseas I guess it's non issue isn't it?
Now you are making huge leaps of logic unsupported by fact, but I suppose that's your norm.
Mercury from the global reservoir, no being deposited as inorganic mercury in soil does not equal remotely means "very little ...is in the US" and it still doesn't mean most of it is from China.
I still can't tell if you are being deliberately misleading or if you don't understand what you are typing. Which is it? And do you admit you were wrong about most mercury in US soil coming from China?
Instead of referring to a "correct" temperature it may be more helpful to talk in terms of making sure our actions don't cause relatively rapid changes in global temperatures. Of course the earth has been different temperatures at different times, but a rise of say 5 degrees C in 200 years would probably be a Bad Thing. And if you say it is bad for some species or just humans who are you to choose which species live and die. I am not sure one can call themselves concerned for the environment if they are plating favorites.
Why? The earth has been many temperatures. To say that global warming is bad or unusual is not true. The global temperature is always changing. It may even be beneficial to open up all of that landmass in northern Asia, Europe, Greenland and North America. Could feed a lot of people with that land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
Obviously if it is 2 degrees warmer today than it was 50 years ago, then it has warmed up.
Change in temperature is more important than absolute temperature. The thermal expansion coefficient of water is about 0.0002 meaning that for every degree Centigrade the temperature rises, it expands by .02%. That does not sound like a lot except for the fact that the ocean is 10,000 feet deep for much of it and a .02% change in volume results in a rise of 2 feet in level.
So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bruce
The solubility of CO2 and of methane (there is enormous amount of frozen methane hydrate at the bottom of the ocean, and methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2) in the ocean goes down as the temperature of the ocean rises. So again, the important thing is the change in temperature. The ocean will expel more dissolved CO2 and will release trapped methane. This adds to the greenhouse effect, making it even warmer and in turn releasing more CO2 and methane. This is a classic positive-feedback loop which is never a good thing.
In your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom
This is the most ridiculous argument.. what do you expect environmentalists to do?.. they still have to work, and eat and move around.. you know "human stuff"...
So let's get this straight, it is OK for them to use oil, heavy metal and plastics as well as other toxins because the self identify as an "environmentalist" and "care about the environment" but when other people do these things it is wrong. What a poor and hypocritical argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom
I checked my energy consumption with my utility company recently and we're consuming 60% less energy than other consumers in my area, but we still consume energy... we heat the home (to 65 degrees), we use major appliances in the kitchen like the oven and the fridge. We like hot water for showering.
You could use cold water if you REALLY cared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom
We do own a car, but fortunately my husband takes the bus (for free) and I ride an electric bike for work. One kid walks and another takes a bus. I take the car once a week on a 10 mile loop to get groceries. One weekend each month we don't drive (or spend money) at all. Most weekends we will drive either of the days.
Our transportation costs are under $2000/annually. An average family spends about $9000.
What about other things? You probably use roads and plastics (petroleum), take medications (enter the water), use heavy metals in various things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom
Not perfect.. but hey, the difference is enough to max out my IRA for the year!
I have no problem with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom
Plastics are incredibly useful and practically essential in food preparation and health care, but they can be over used. I've made a lot of small subsitutions over the years that have become habitual... reusing empty food packaging as a wastebasket or to empty the litter box. Buying pantry-stable food items in bulk and reusing bags for that. Finding the most acceptable product that uses the least amount of packaging (Scotts brand of toilet paper at Target for example doesn't wrap the toilet paper rolls within the outer packaging... all other brands do). Stuff like that..
But yeah, like I said, we're still humans so we still need to wipe our asse$s.
That is your choice. You still pollute so spare us the sermon.
Changes in mercury deposition rates associated with reductions in power plant
mercury emissions are based on regional deposition modeling results from the EPA's
analysis of the Clear Skies Initiative. In its analysis, the EPA simulated current mercury
deposition rates and the changes in these rates that would result if power plants
reduced their mercury emissions from the current rate of 49 tons per year to either 26 or
15 tons per year. We used these predictions to estimate changes in deposition rates for
the freshwater regions, the Atlantic Coastal Region, and the Gulf of Mexico. Estimated
decreases range from approximately 1% to 10%. The change in deposition rates to the
All Other Waters region is assumed to be proportional to the change in total global
emissions that would result from U.S. power plant emissions reductions, which is less
than 1%.
If you are mathematically challenged that is about a 50 to 70 percent reduction in emissions resulting in a 1 to 10 percent reduction in deposition.
Why? The earth has been many temperatures. To say that global warming is bad or unusual is not true.
In your opinion.
These organizations have a different opinion. I would tend to believe them over someone on the Internet:
The American Association for the Advancement in Science.
The National Academy of Sciences
The American Geophysical Union
The AMA
The American Meteorological Society
The American Physics Society
The American Chemical Society
The twist is we are now compliance inspected annually as an urban woodland interface...
You "Can" let wood rot if it is first reduced to chips...
Several times I have been cited and requested a field meeting with a supervisor who told me it is clear the area is not in compliance... thing is the area in question is city owned property... go figure?
This is the stuff that drives me nuts... 120k vegetation management inspectors that are clueless as to private and city property.
One year they want it clearcut and a few years later it is a no-no due to erosion.
Five inspectors are likely to provide five different answers.
I really believe things like this wear on people over time...
The government is suppose to be for the people and not the other way around...
This just reinforces my (much) earlier point about the government being stupid. Especially when it comes to expecting urban socialite millenials to understand the environment in a rural farm region. Or a forest. Or heck, in my own Hudson River.
These organizations have a different opinion. I would tend to believe them over someone on the Internet:
The American Association for the Advancement in Science.
The National Academy of Sciences
The American Geophysical Union
The AMA
The American Meteorological Society
The American Physics Society
The American Chemical Society
These groups are saying the Earth has not been many temperatures?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
