So you're willing to upend the global economy, wreck the wealth of nations, and quite possibly inflict crushing poverty on tens of millions of people. Inflicting more suffering on more people than rising sea levels would anyway. All on the basis of "nobody knows for sure". Please forgive me and others for expecting substantially more certainty before taking radical action.
I'll forgive quite a bit, but not a post this nonsensical. How would I be "upending the global economy, wrecking the wealth of nations, and quite possibly inflicting crushing poverty on tens of millions of people"??? Before we go any further, you'd best explain yoreself.
You think such an abrupt switch to carbon neutral power generation systems can be accomplished without cost or sacrifice? And don't spout this BS about "clean technology produces jobs". If so called "clean technology" was economical and profitable, businesses and countries would be doing it already on their own. No encouragement necessary.
Yes SIR!!! Consider the SACRIFICE involved in not doing it if it turns out -- as I think obvious -- that the carbon economy is the Road to Ruin. 1) In 2015, Denmark derived over 42% of the electricity consumed there from wind power -- up from 39% in 2014. Whereas in the US you keep seeing these freaking coal-fired monstrosities. 2) I have news for you ---- Economy and Profitability are not Divinely Ordained Guiding Criteria. Yes, I realize you've probably been brainwashed by True-Blue Market-Fundamentalist Doctrine, but there are more important things, such as human survival.
The problem I have with this train of thought is that if we continue to ignore the pollution and rapid climate changes and the world destabilize, all the profit in the world will become a moot point.
That's sort of what I'm saying here. If we wait until all the evidence is in and the scientific community has had a chance to endlessly sift and weigh it, it will be too blasted late to do anything. It may well be already. It's like you're walking down railway tracks and you see this freight train bearing down on you. Do you say Well, that could be a real freight train. But then again it might be a Jimson-Weed flashback. So should I step out of the way or not? My feeling is it's wiser to get out of the way and ask questions later. Of course, doing this re the warming climate is not in the short-term interests of the Oil Companies and their political lackeys. They used to deny that it was happening at all. Now that this is no longer possible, they've gone over to special pleading about the cause, as in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
You're talking to me, right gul? The thing is, if you don't draw the talkee's attention to what you're saying ....... Anyway, since I did just happen to see your post: It most certainly was not "as in all on its own". These things simply don't happen all on their own. As the last ice age was ending, a giant lake of meltwater (Lake Agassiz -- named after the great Swiss geologist, not the tennis player) formed over much of central Canada and the far-northern US. Then, about 8,000 years ago, the ice bridge holding it all back broke and it gushed forth into Hudson Bay and up around Quebec and down the Davis Strait into the North Atlantic. Of course in those days there was nobody around taking notes. But a lot of scientists think this meltwater "pulse" led to a new ice age of several centuries in north-western Europe. (Maybe eastern North America too, I'm not sure.) This is because, of course, north-western Europe is greatly warmed by the Gulf Stream. But salt water is denser than fresh water. So if you have a huge flood of fresh meltwater charging down the Davis Strait, even though it's colder it's going to float on top of the Gulf Stream. Even stop the Gulf Stream dead. In any case it forms a barrier between the warmth of the Gulf Stream and the air above it. So no heat-exchange occurs. So north-western Europe suddenly gets a whole lot colder Real Quick. In a couple of centuries the effect fades. But what is that in terms of human lifetime? The Arctic ice-cap is currently melting and the resulting water is flowing down into the North Atlantic. So ..... Guess What --- Could Happen.
You do realize that "Denmark" is a very tiny country both in terms of population and land area. Not remotely comparable to the United States.
Profit NEVER becomes a moot point? How do you think any reduction in carbon emissions is going to be financed? Or any other adjustment to climate change?
Duhhh, yup. Bullshit. Why not? Wind blows in the US, doan it? (And sun shines on it, and ocean waves crash up against it, etc. etc.). And American anthropoids use electricity just as Danish anthropoids do. Or not? Don't strawman me. I'm not saying that the US could -- tomorrow -- produce 42% of its electricity from wind power. But it could do One Whole Hell of a Lot Better than it's doing. Hey, so could a lot of countries. I'm just shown' ya what's possible if people put their minds to it. Oh, and by the way Dayton, putting up and maintaining those wind turbines have created a lot of jobs in Denmark. I know you ordered me not to say this, but ahm a-sayin' it anyhow, yep. And I'm beginning to get an uhh.. inkling of why people here say the things about you they do. :-P
Hey, I hear that Donald has appointed Bill Cosby to be secretary for women's rights. Is that false news? I wouldn't put anything past him. Of course Donald's campaign was heaving with lies from the start. Very scary indeed.
I'm fairly sure there are uninhabited areas of the USA the size of Denmark that'd be perfect for wind and solar farms.
There's a part of Iowa along I-80 that's a wind farm. On a gray, cloudy day it's surprisingly beautiful.
Anyone concerned Trump may not have Russia's best interests at heart can rest easy. Trump nominates Exxon CEO to Secretary of State. In 2011, Tillerson sealed a deal with Russian state-owned oil company Rosneft on behalf of ExxonMobil, giving Exxon access to the Russian Arctic and Rosneft a stake in the US company’s projects in North America. READ MORE: State Department frontrunner is Exxon Mobil exec honored with Russian state award by Putin Speaking at a press conference in Belgrade following the announcement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said “We accept this as a decision by the president-elect of the United States and, as President Putin had underlined on numerous occasions we’re ready to work with any partners who are interested in developing comprehensive relations with Russia.” Kremlin foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov described Tillerson as being “well known to the Russian representatives and was actively involved in business cooperation.” “He is respectable and very professional,” added Ushakov. “Not only the Russian president, but Russian representatives have good business relationships with him.”
Report on Trump's conflicts of interest and how there are already signs foreigners are using them for leverage: http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-jeopardize-us-531140?rm=eu
Just the perception that his business ties will affect US policy, will have an effect. Even if Trump is able to contain his conflicts of interest, foreigners won't. I'm not sure it's any worse than Bush's oil cronies and Cheney's ties to Halliburton. Just more obvious. Business as usual. Sorry I'm not aware of equivalencies on the democratic side.
not at all. Republicans are corrupt, Democrats are corrupt, in much the same way and the same patterns and more so the higher the office at stake. There's nothing new about this and has been thus since ever. Trump is several orders of magnitude worse than either and it has not anything at all to do with being nominally a Republican.
I was reading somewhere that there was a problem with winfarms along avian migratory routes. It seems the windmill creates a low pressure area the birds are prone to fly through for some reason. This causes them to die due to the rupturing of small blood vessels. They were looking for a solution for it, but IIRC certain birds were attracted to the currents of the mills and it was killing a lot of them.
Ironically, one of Trump's big lines about wind farms (he's just pissed people keep building them near his golf resorts) is that they "kill birds", but reports show that, while wind farms do kill or injure several hundred birds per year, that pales in comparison to high-rise buildings, which kill or injure millions. And Trump likes high-rise buildings.
This has been a problem with the classic spinning-thing-on-a-mast turbine. Some nearby people get headaches and what-not to. But there are many ways to skin a cat:
Here is where we need to put on our thinking caps and think about these numbers. Could it be that the stats for high rise buildings might include the entire country or world. That may spread out the deaths while the wind farms may have a geographic footprint equal to a high rise, but may be killing more in ratio.
