Sorry to double challenge you, but cannot let this one go. The first quote wasn't entirely a challenge anyway.
That is PRECISELY what you are saing in your 'but' statement. It's as clear as the Edmonton homer we had such a laugh about in the 'Edmonton is no good thread.'
Your second statement is in complete ideologal and practical opposition to your first one. It's not even a question of viewpoints or misunderstanding though I'm preyty sure you'll argue it as such for a page or two.
Not saying we should do nothing... But chances we can't do enough to matter doing anything, so why do anything?
I'm not saying we should do nothing, but why rock the boat for a cause to big to fix?
Not saying we should do anything, but my kids will live in a time where it will be essiet to tackle this problem.
Hey, I'm not saying do nothing. But it's still on the table.
Please check put my other post in the other environment thread. Over simplified? For sure. Preachy? Yeah probably. The ultimate response to 'is the cost of the solution worth the disease? Absolutely.
Oh and if you disagree on your my assesment on your statements making sense as a whole... please... before you call me out on putting words in your mouth, simply explain to me how the two statements actually can live in a universe together in harmony.
If you can do this? I retract.
Your second statement does, in not that many words, say we should consider doing nothing.
Uhhh, no.
All I'm saying is that despite our best efforts we might not be able to reverse the warming trend.
Has nothing to do with thinking we shouldn't do anything.
Seems to me that natural gas is a great benefit, and the push towards more natural gas power plants is a good thing.
I have a hard time believing the leakage can't be contained. The shale play and the resulting natural gas boom is relatively new in the US. The technology landscape will be a lot better in 5 years.
Seems to me that natural gas is a great benefit, and the push towards more natural gas power plants is a good thing.
I have a hard time believing the leakage can't be contained. The shale play and the resulting natural gas boom is relatively new in the US. The technology landscape will be a lot better in 5 years.
Only if there is incentive to fix it.
One of the biggest reasons they leak, according to the article, has nothing to do with technology. It's because they are improperly capped and then abandoned and forgotten.
The province doesn't care, the Feds don't care, why should the oil companies care?
The excuse that It will hurt the Economy and Jobs will be lost is true but a #### Excuse. People will be need to Install and Maintain any new system that replaces oil. To say you aren't skilled in that field is true but you were not always trained how to work in the Tar sands either. You had to be trained on how to work on the rigs. If you can learn a Trade once you can learn another trade as well. The tar sands provide many transferable skills.
Germany's answer
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 06-06-2014 at 03:20 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to combustiblefuel For This Useful Post:
Lost your Job on the Rigs? Need a new Job?
Solar Freaking Roadways!!!
Seriously tho The Federal Highway Administration had commissioned and Funded this product for testing. the Prototype is done and they are moving into Mass Production. They are looking to put a factory in every state then into every Country. recently they have projected they will have enough product Too have replaced all parking lots within the next five years. After 5 years when the Highway Systems. Thats ALOT of Jobs for the future and ALOT of money funneling into the economy. Each individual piece can hold 80 tonnes.
original Video
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 06-06-2014 at 04:11 AM.
Every single piece of synthetic plastic that has ever been manufactured since 1950 is still in existence today, as each one takes thousands of years to break down. A recent study has indicated that plastic litter can become fused with rocks and other materials to form a new material: plastiglomerate. This material could very well become a permanent part of the geological record, forever marking humanity’s impact on the world.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
All I'm saying is that despite our best efforts we might not be able to reverse the warming trend.
Has nothing to do with thinking we shouldn't do anything.
You're reading way too much into what I said.
I know. I got that, that's part of the problem I have with your reasoning. You think you're absolving yourself by saying, 'eh, it could be a losing cause'. But really, it's only a losing cause because people like you have that attitude.' It's a self perpetuating failure.
You say you want to do something, you say your open to something, but that reasoning gives you away. What you really want is a magic cure that doesn't upset the status quo so bad. You'd be open to that. Yeah, so would everyone else.
I'm not reading in man, your just trying to gloss your fence sitting.
One, it's not a here or there. There are grades of change, of success or failure. Doing something is always better than doing nothing, cause it will have a better effect. It's not, do it right and you win the game, do it wrong we all lose. There is no win or lose. It's a journey, a process, like all of life.
'We may not be able to reverse the warming trend' is simply a phrase that makes no sense and is very dangerous. Yeah, there are problems coming down the pipe. How big do you want those problems to be? We can still decide that.
Two, what important decision has ever been waved away by saying, 'ehhh, there's a good chance we can't do anything about it anyway.'?
Ehhh, we probably won't be able to defeat the Nazi's anyway, so should we really try?
Come on man. Either your being purposefully nihilistic, or you still don't see how bad this 'warming trend' could be. Your the drunk at the bar ordering another double for last call when he knows he can't drive cause, at this point, how can it do any more harm?
And for the loss of jobs and profit. From my other post...
Lastly as an argument that is so obvious I don't know why the other side never acknowledges it, losing habitable land (major cities!) to the oceans, losing arable land to drought, and losing biodiversity to climate change is going to be far more devastating to the economy than the change that will occur from moving from non-renewable fuels. Far more. Like drop in the bucket difference.
This is a real thing. Not hyperbole. Several nations and economies are already feeling it.
Last edited by Daradon; 06-09-2014 at 03:42 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
Even though its vaccines, again its the lefts version of the rights anti science denialism.
Are you saying that the science is in on nat gas extraction and it's harm (or lack of) to the environment isn't proven?
This is generally not your opinion Thor, trying to figure out if I read your post wrong, or there is a disconnect here because it's nat gas.
Hey nat gas is way cleaner to burn than any other fossil fuel we have. Agreed. The problem is the new methods of extraction, which probably give more pollution to the bottom line than most other fuels. Regardless, it's not the silver bullet it's painted to be, it's just another fossil fuel.
I would say a lot of the studies here are based on O&G studies, and really have little or nothing to do with actual science.
In fact, I'd say a lot of quotes of 'science' here are very reminiscent of the tobacco companies doing their science in the 50's and the energy companies and their denial of climate science and climate change in general.
I was once told by a relative in O&G, of course we do everything we can to prevent spillage and leaks and such. Because to do so, is to save money in the long run. It's far easier to be responsible than to clean up a mess and pay for public perception.
Hey, makes a lot of sense. This is true. Only we know how that's not how business works. (Shoot it's not how life works or humans operate really) Cutting corners to come ahead of budget, get a bonus, whatever, happens. It happens regularly. People do it cause they think when the mess comes, they won't have to deal with it. Companies do it because they think, hey, it's a one in one hundred chance, it won't fail here. Not on my watch. This is the whole reason we have regulations in the first place. Cause if there is profit to be made, businesses, by and large, do not act morally.
Whether it's a concerted effort from the top to cloud a problem and keep a brand, or the mistake of a lone supervisor or manager somewhere who just wanted to look good by saving money, it happens every single day.
More to that end, they take an active role in trying to hide truth. Buying phony scientists, fudging emissions reports, and lobbying politicians to look the other way also happens. It happens daily.
GM sitting on a fatal product defect for 10+ years anyone? No, I liked to think companies behaved like me. The fact is they do not. Damage and death is only balanced against a change to the bottom line. And of course this goes 10 times for problems like climate change which are invisible to the naked eye.
To think that O&G, that we know has been hiding climate data, fighting climate data, coming up with their own truth on climate data would be accurately and fairly be reporting leakage, is insane.
And I'm sure I'll get an 'well this was a government report here, or an independent report there.' Government that is shutting down scientists and climate scientists? Independent report that was commissioned by and O&G lobby?
Gonna say, those numbers BBS quoted to me mean dick all. I've seen it before. It's fudging of truth, it's lies. So tired of this. For 25 years we've gone in this circle and guess what, the science keeps coming out, and the pro environment crowd keeps getting proven right. It's just companies trying to hang on as long as they can when most of them themselves know their blowing smoke. It's tobacco companies all over again. It really is.
Come on. We've seen this happen with so many other industries, we know how it plays out. To think that this is any different...
Are you saying that the science is in on nat gas extraction and it's harm (or lack of) to the environment isn't proven?
This is generally not your opinion Thor, trying to figure out if I read your post wrong, or there is a disconnect here because it's nat gas.
Hey nat gas is way cleaner to burn than any other fossil fuel we have. Agreed. The problem is the new methods of extraction, which probably give more pollution to the bottom line than most other fuels. Regardless, it's not the silver bullet it's painted to be, it's just another fossil fuel.
No, it's not the Silver Bullet. It's just as damaging to wait for a silver bullet to fix all our problems, as it is to do nothing, because there will generally always be some form of problem found with something new.
There is no silver bullet. What there is, however, is a bridge technology. How about we get incrementally better, NOW, in a way we can actually afford, than argue about how horrible this option is, because it comes from Oil and Gas producers. Natural Gas isn't supposed to be the only fuel used. It isn't supposed to be the only fix. It is a very useful fix for now, until we can actually come up with something better.
Here is a link to the seminal 2011 paper published by Howarth, Santoro and Ingraffea from Cornell University which laid out how shale gas, as developed under current practices, is a worse GHG source (in CO2 equivalents) on a 100 year basis than coal.
It kicked off several rebuttal studies no doubt funded by industry. Here is a good list of papers on both sides of the shale gas is better/worse debate. There are far more saying they're better... but after working in the industry I would agree with the conclusions of the Howarth paper. That said, it takes someone honest to call out how things really are to make industry clean their act up... and I don't think there really is a lot more that industry can do to get better cement jobs around casing and prevent things like cement degradation over time, micro-channels, so to me there is an end game that will always involve some degree of methane release to atmoshpere no matter how tight practices get.
The Following User Says Thank You to SeeGeeWhy For This Useful Post:
Lost your Job on the Rigs? Need a new Job?
Solar Freaking Roadways!!!
Seriously tho The Federal Highway Administration had commissioned and Funded this product for testing. the Prototype is done and they are moving into Mass Production. They are looking to put a factory in every state then into every Country. recently they have projected they will have enough product Too have replaced all parking lots within the next five years. After 5 years when the Highway Systems. Thats ALOT of Jobs for the future and ALOT of money funneling into the economy. Each individual piece can hold 80 tonnes.
original Video
This is absolutely insane. In a friggin awesome way.
Sadly the hype is mostly just that, the costs and issues facing these are MASSIVE. Thunderfoot has made 2 good videos covering the major hurdles and how its just not doable, far from it.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Its my opinion that we require... perhaps several iterations of practical material science and quantum mechanical advancements before solar power becomes a truly viable alternative.
It may be oversimplifying things, but to create that, I think we require:
1. An abundance of low cost, clean energy
2. Greater resources being placed towards education and R&D in general
Grow the brains and let them play...
We won't have an abundance of clean, low cost energy if we are planning on relying on the renewable generation technologies of today. Energy density and EROIs are far too low... I fear regressions in both economic activities and standards of living if this comes to be the case.
The Following User Says Thank You to SeeGeeWhy For This Useful Post:
I think you're vastly underplaying the potential of current renewables. A lot of analysis is starting to show that deep penetration of renewables is technically feasible right now without large breakthroughs.
The reason we need breakthroughs is to lower the cost otherwise it's all possible now.
