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.
It's so entertaining to watch people with no background in science (beyond sorta paying attention in high school) debate scientific theory. Not as entertaining as the last Republican debate...but darned entertaining.
It's not much different then watching people debate industries one has worked in for years that others only participate in mostly out of politics (healthcare, taxes, legal profession, economics).
It's not much different then watching people debate industries one has worked in for years that others only participate in mostly out of politics (healthcare, taxes, legal profession, economics).
Oh. You didn't talk about that. And even now you're not mentioning the cost of desalinization. How convenient.
actually desalinization can be fairly cheap if done right. if you use sea water to recharge the aquifers, then you just have the cost channeling the water to where the recharge takes place, and that is basically a one time cost with minimal maintenance. on the other hand if you are talking about running sea water through a commercial desalination plant, then yes the cost is about three times what it costs to provide clean drinking water from the aquifer, or a reservoir. but then providing clean drinking water in some areas requires the added expense, and is worth the money to prevent the population from dehydrating, dont you think?
but i was thinking on a small scale, distilling enough water for a few people per day.
I'm not insinuating anything. Just curious as to your personal thoughts on climate change. Has nothing to do with politics or ideology.
I 100% believe that CO2 warms the planet, that this is a problem and that if no action is taken it will certainly be a disaster. I don't think it will be impossible to survive, but I think it will be very very difficult and that the collapse of human civilization isn't out of the question... though this won't necessarily occur in my lifetime.
I 100% believe that CO2 warms the planet, that this is a problem and that if no action is taken it will certainly be a disaster. I don't think it will be impossible to survive, but I think it will be very very difficult and that the collapse of human civilization isn't out of the question... though this won't necessarily occur in my lifetime.
Perfect... I don't take a 'wait' and see approach, although I do think some of the claims are over the top. As far as habitability, I have more concern with other living organisms vs humanity, but I also believe that in regards to all losses of habitat.
Specifically about CO2, if the government is going to get involved, I am deadset against carbon taxes and carbon exchanges. To me that is just another money transfer scheme. However, I would be more open to things like carbon capture. Think along the lines of the Ansari X project (I know that is private) where there is a 'prize' for X amount of measurable PPM of CO2.
below is just but one of many links for this concept. I thought it was gaining traction, actually at coal fired plants, but then fracking made petro-products so cheap that carbon capture kind of dropped off the radar.
To me this is the strongest evidence of global warming....
Sea levels on Earth are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years and are accelerating because of man-made global warming, according to new studies.
Until the 1880s and the world's industrialization, the fastest seas rose was about three to four centimetres (1 to 1.5 inches) a century, but today the rate of rise is more than a foot per century.
That is already causing problems, which will only get worse in the future.
Natural or man made we would have to adapt either way..... Energy is vital. There are still 1 billion of humans with no electricity in their homes. Can you understand that? The world will soon have 9 billion people starving for cheap reliable energy.
Perfect... I don't take a 'wait' and see approach, although I do think some of the claims are over the top. As far as habitability, I have more concern with other living organisms vs humanity, but I also believe that in regards to all losses of habitat.
Specifically about CO2, if the government is going to get involved, I am deadset against carbon taxes and carbon exchanges. To me that is just another money transfer scheme. However, I would be more open to things like carbon capture. Think along the lines of the Ansari X project (I know that is private) where there is a 'prize' for X amount of measurable PPM of CO2.
below is just but one of many links for this concept. I thought it was gaining traction, actually at coal fired plants, but then fracking made petro-products so cheap that carbon capture kind of dropped off the radar.
Carbon Capture is a good idea, but it will also make electricity more expensive, and not by a little-- your bills would be 50% higher.
On the other hand, the carbon tax, where implemented has actually SAVED households money. It's not a 'money transfer' scheme if it offsets the burdens from other taxes, which would be eliminated or decreased, and it provides a good incentive for businesses to find innovative ways to reduce their carbon output at the same time.
I think the reason so many people are opposed to it is because as soon as they hear the word 'tax', they assume that the government is trying to take their money... which is why it always leads to conspiracy ideation and ends with someone declaring AGW a hoax. But if it's a tax that eliminates another tax and saves you money, why is it a bad thing?
^^
How does a carbon tax keep the cost of producing goods down? If energy becomes more expensive for manufacturing, the cost will be passed down to the consumer.
James Hansen:
Quote:
Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy
Carbon Capture is a good idea, but it will also make electricity more expensive, and not by a little-- your bills would be 50% higher.
On the other hand, the carbon tax, where implemented has actually SAVED households money. It's not a 'money transfer' scheme if it offsets the burdens from other taxes, which would be eliminated or decreased, and it provides a good incentive for businesses to find innovative ways to reduce their carbon output at the same time.
I think the reason so many people are opposed to it is because as soon as they hear the word 'tax', they assume that the government is trying to take their money... which is why it always leads to conspiracy ideation and ends with someone declaring AGW a hoax. But if it's a tax that eliminates another tax and saves you money, why is it a bad thing?
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.
