My biggest worry with this announcement now becomes "oh clean unlimited power is only 30-ish years away, let's not worry about the renewables transition, let's just adapt till fusion reactors are ready".Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah, if we are to have even small chance of beating climate change, things like these, plus multiple others, will have to go away.Watching the celebrations of New Year all around the world, I wonder how much bad stuff for the pollution fireworks do for just one night?
It's bad enough how it affects the poor animals, I really don't see the reason why the fireworks aren't banned completely.
Sounds MAGA.I met an Australian yesterday who said all the fires and floods are because the Greens wouldn't allow proper land management.
It's maddening how this stuff is couched in terms of political preferences and personal vendettas. It's also for me the most frustrating part about this Tate vs Thunberg twitter thing. Why does Tate think it's funny that his cars emit a lot of carbon, and even more funny to tell Thunberg that? And why is Thunberg's reply considered so awesome although it's only witty and devoid of substance? You can tell me Tate's an idiot (which he is of course) and doesn't deserve better, but I think that conversation was symptomatic for a lot of the discussion and a large part of the reason why far too little happens: it's still not sufficiently seen as a humanitarian emergency but as some kind of political discussion piece, a part of those dumb culture wars that's fit for individual postering.I met an Australian yesterday who said all the fires and floods are because the Greens wouldn't allow proper land management.
I think I follow your gist, it's important to stick to facts and evidence rather than resort to accusations of stupidity and lack of education, which, going by the Brexit arguments, just does not work.It's maddening how this stuff is couched in terms of political preferences and personal vendettas. It's also for me the most frustrating part about this Tate vs Thunberg twitter thing. Why does Tate think it's funny that his cars emit a lot of carbon, and even more funny to tell Thunberg that? And why is Thunberg's reply considered so awesome although it's only witty and devoid of substance?You can tell me Tate's an idiot (which he is of course) and doesn't deserve better, but I think that conversation was symptomatic for a lot of the discussion and a large part of the reason why far too little happens: it's still not sufficiently seen as a humanitarian emergency but as some kind of political discussion piece, a part of those dumb culture wars that's fit for individual postering.
For me, Thunberg's reply should rather have been something like 'If you want to give humanity the finger, shouldn't you rather be addressing the UN Secretary General rather than an activist?' That wouldn't be as funny of course, but I think any attempt should be made to ground this debate in its actual reality rather than political spats and pissing contests.
Not just that. I was more trying to say that I think it's important at all times to yank people that like the antagonistic/polarization angle back into what this is actually about. I.e., it's not another chapter in their beloved culture wars, but a real thing that affects everyone. People can disagree on solutions, but should agree on the reality and seriousness of the thing, and bring those dumb little spats back to that context whenever we can.I think I follow your gist, it's important to stick to facts and evidence rather than resort to accusations of stupidity and lack of education, which, going by the Brexit arguments, just does not work.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Being able to switch on your lights is a bit of a vote winner. If you don't want to use nuclear, and you cant use gas, it doesn't leave many options. Germany isn't a country that can rely on renewables. They don't really have much choice and this project is already a big reduction from the original plan.A modern, moderate, Green party gets into government in the most powerful state in Europe, unlike the hippy freaks and losers in the US and UK. They then take decisive climate action that will save humanity in the best Green tradition: clear land for a coal mine. Thank god for moderation and electability!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sorry, nothing that spins a *green* party expanding a *coal* mine works. it is no better that the green party is in power, compared to the cdu or spd. history and capital have already thrown meaningful green parties in the bin, what is left now is a name and a colour.Being able to switch on your lights is a bit of a vote winner. If you don't want to use nuclear, and you cant use gas, it doesn't leave many options. Germany isn't a country that can rely on renewables. They don't really have much choice and this project is already a big reduction from the original plan.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
People don't want coal, because it's bad for the environment, they don't want nuclear energy, because it's too dangerous and they don't want LNG, because it's too Russian. Oh and they also demand that energy prices be lower. There is no good option for the greens, the great irony about their party is that they have been in power twice, the first time around there was 9/11 and this time it's Ukraine and the energy crisis that's forcing them to compromise. I genuinely don't know whether this was a sensible deal or corruption, but your stance is completely ignoring the political reality the party is facing.Sorry, nothing that spins a *green* party expanding a *coal* mine works. it is no better that the green party is in power, compared to the cdu or spd. history and capital have already thrown meaningful green parties in the bin, what is left now is a name and a colour.
and the nuclear thing is a self-inflicted wound, supported by this same party and the cdu! again, no difference.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Well, they can phase out waterver they want. Is not their choice. Europe, California and other populated states will make mandatory that all the new vehicles will be electric by 2035, so the car manufacturers will make all their car lines electric as it would be stupid to have 2 lines (EV and ICE) to accommodate Wyoming and other minor places. The majority of car manufacturers already said so that will get all productions before 2035-40. So Wyoming will get new EV by 2035-40 or will get none at all.Literal insanity.
Senate JOINT RESOLUTION NO. SJ0004
Phasing out new electric vehicle sales by 2035.
Sponsored by: Senator(s) Anderson, Boner, Cooper and Dockstader and Representative(s) Burkhart and Henderson
A JOINT RESOLUTION
for
A JOINT RESOLUTION expressing support for phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035.
...
WHEREAS, the proliferation of electric vehicles at the expense of gas-powered vehicles will have deleterious impacts on Wyoming's communities and will be detrimental to Wyoming's economy and the ability for the country to efficiently engage in commerce; and
WHEREAS, phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035 will ensure the stability of Wyoming's oil and gas industry and will help preserve the country's critical minerals for vital purposes.
https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/SJ0004
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Places like Tucson and Phoenix also have serious issues with long-term sustainability: their kind of urban sprawl is difficult to support under the current circumstances already and it will only get worse.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Here is the full article on the subject: Hidden hydrogen: Earth may hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel | Science | AAASNature Briefing said:Hydrogen might be hiding underground
There might be vast natural reserves of clean-burning hydrogen gas hidden underground. Researchers at the US Geological Survey estimate that there might be enough to meet rising global demand for thousands of years. An added benefit of underground hydrogen is that it’s renewable, being constantly replenished by reactions between water and rock deep below Earth’s surface. Why didn’t anyone spot it before? It’s not found in the same places as oil and gas reservoirs, and no one was looking for it, say proponents.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Speaking of which, there's an article on CBC just today about the water wars (my term) in Mariposa County, and along the Colorado River more generally:Places like Tucson and Phoenix also have serious issues with long-term sustainability: their kind of urban sprawl is difficult to support under the current circumstances already and it will only get worse.
Wow. How interesting is that. I had always thought that we were told that the problem with hydrogen was that while it was the most abundant atom in the universe, it was not available on earth in its free state.Sarcasm aside, I actually also read some really good news today:
Here is the full article on the subject: Hidden hydrogen: Earth may hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel | Science | AAAS
So awesome that I worry it's too good to be true... Or am I missing something?
Never cared enough, nor looked in the right places it seems! But this looks REALLY positive.Wow. How interesting is that. I had always thought that we were told that the problem with hydrogen was that while it was the most abundant atom in the universe, it was not available on earth in its free state.
Something like 60% of river water there is used to grow alfalfa to feed cows in other states and other countries. Isn't this madness? No, the markets have decided it's optimal!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Oh, goodThe world is on track to overshoot 1.5 degrees of warming, so it’s time to study reflecting sun away from the Earth, UN says
It's where we were always going to end up. There's already been commercial firms trying do low level testing so I don't think we're far from the rogue element being discussed in that article.
