Not sure why you'd go there.
Did you misunderstand my words? Or are you trying for humor?
Don't bother explaining.

tailgater wrote:

The US is 14% of the world's CO2 emissions. China is 24%. Brave and admirable would be her going to China with her "how dare you" but it would also be suicide. While she is how daring the EU and US China is business as usual.

Tittums wrote:

I mean... if those stats are true (and I have not double checked them), then you answered your own question. Per capita CO2 emissions in the US are significantly higher than China. That would suggest there is more opportunities for improving CO2 emissions.

victor809 wrote:

there's always the nuclear option...


seriously, when climate change poses existential threats to some nations, armed conflict is certainly a possibility...

delta1 wrote:

I pulled them from Wikipedia so who knows. And yes, per capita we are worse but China is still the largest producer. What happens when the US is magically down to 1% and the EU is down from (I believe it is 8%?) to 1%. China is still going to be a problem.

Tittums wrote:

If we ever get down that far, then we have that discussion. Until then, "but China" isn't a very effective argument.

Put simply, when our per-capita is higher than theirs, then the solution is either reduce our per capita emissions, or kill off their people (like 50 percent or so... I guess that's about 500 million?)

China's problems are bad, but so far much of it is tied to the enormous population. Our emissions problems are more behavior based, and therefore have some room for improvement.

victor809 wrote:

But as I said above, I want to see nuclear be included with the usual "wind/solar" solution. You rarely hear nuclear as an option. We need options that do not rely on the time of day or if the wind is going to blow.

Hell, here in Florida duke energy is king and they have no interests in nuclear. My power bill would be so much lower I would think?

Tittums wrote:

I've been saying for about a decade that we should be building more nuclear power plants. (You are mischaracterizing solar and wind by the way, they aren't as unreliable as you want to imply). I have zero problem with nuclear plants.

victor809 wrote:

And that's why the divide is not as bad as the media wants us to believe. From speaking with you we have a lot to disagree on but nuclear is one we do agree on yet the politicians never talk about it.

I've watched every Dem debate despite being a conservative purely because I want to know what horrors they want to unleash on us. They never mention nuclear when climate change comes up and they don't even talk much about climate change these days. (Maybe that's why Greta stepped up?) Dem's don't want to talk about anything but Trump and now that impeachment is coming to a close they are using silly causes to skip whole debates in protest.

Tittums wrote:

I disagree with her message, but I admire the hell out of her.

tailgater wrote:

Indeed, there is a nuclear option. But for some reason a lot of progressives are against it. But I am speaking of nuclear power rather than arms.

Tittums wrote:

I believe you.
Regardless of message, she deserves admiration.
At her age it was a pain in the butt to turn off the light when I left a room.

Opel only touched on it, but it has been reported that she has Asperger's which would or could certainly account for her lacking social comfort or any indication of a sense of warmth or humor.
Add in her speaking in a second (or third) language...

frankj1 wrote:

I can't speak for anybody else, but I've changed my mind regarding the viability of nuclear power as an alternative...

it's been around for about 50 years, and have already accounted for many irremediable environmental disasters, rendering large areas unlivable...

delta1 wrote:

waste product from nuclear plants can not be safely disposed, given our current technology, and will be a danger to, and outlive, the human race by millions of years...

There are negative consequences to hydropower. I think it's great, but we are changing the flow of a river in an enormous way. We can't pretend that doesn't have an ecological impact.
Now, to be fair, the way the US runs nuclear plants, I think we use rivers for cooling the towers as well, so we have a huge impact on the local waterways when we do that (raised temperature, reduced flow etc)

Nothing is perfect. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to use a combination of the best energy sources we are technologically able to use. If we were a truly logical society we would honestly tabulate the risks and damages of each technology and use a mixed basket of all of them, weighted to risk of disaster, long term impacts of use etc. But we've never been logical, or smart.

victor809 wrote:

if truly logical, instead of being owned by the corporations vying for the biz?

also, this is like the 3rd post in as many days in which you say "to be fair". What's up with that? HA!

also part deux, don't you hate it that tittums turned out to be a bright, knowledgeable, and nice conservative noob?

frankj1 wrote: