John Kerry says now we only have 9 Years till Global Warming Kills us All

[amadeus]

@Samm

Productive conversation? Are you new here?

I’ve been here for a while, and I’ve not seen a productive conversation. The reason is that nobody on this board is an expert.

[Borgia_dude]

@amadeus

@Samm

Productive conversation? Are you new here?

I’ve been here for a while, and I’ve not seen a productive conversation. The reason is that nobody on this board is an expert.

But the ones who admit to lacking expertise oddly seem more proficient that the ones who claim Internet educated expertise.

[AngraMainyu]

@Axxowiz

They conveniently leave out the China problem and it cannot be left out of a global problem as China plans on building 2 new massive coal plants every two weeks until 2030 not counting the ones they are building in third world countries and treat it like a “Nothing to see here”.

Economic development is expected in the developing world; it’s incorporated in the plan. They are given more leeway to a certain threshold. Developed countries scale back from where they are now.

[Axxowiz]

China is the second richest country in the world (Soon to be first), they could implement whatever type of energy policy they want they prefer coal because it is the cheapest. We’re not talking about Cambodia here then I would see the lee-way you speak of.

The whole China is still developing facade is so western countries can look the other way while China boils the planet. A developing nation couldn’t afford to be the biggest energy users on the planet far outpacing the U.S.

[TheRedComet]

China is developed from an energy standpoint.

They should be using nuclear and hydro. They’re wealthy enough for it.

[Samm]

So are we, but we’re not doing that either.

Of course we have an excuse … the environmental wacko lobby … China’s government can do anything within their boundaries that they want to do.

[TheRedComet]

Exactly. The Chinese don’t have an excuse. They get protesters outside of their power plants they’ll just shoot them and throw their bodies into the cooling pools.

I do think we should have went heavily nuclear in the 1970s. Should have built a lot more plants than we ended up building. It’s clean and efficient power and it has the baseload capabilities that solar and wind do not provide.

[Ceasar]

@AngraMainyu

@Axxowiz

They conveniently leave out the China problem and it cannot be left out of a global problem as China plans on building 2 new massive coal plants every two weeks until 2030 not counting the ones they are building in third world countries and treat it like a “Nothing to see here”.

Economic development is expected in the developing world; it’s incorporated in the plan. They are given more leeway to a certain threshold. Developed countries scale back from where they are now.

Well, if it’s such an emergency & we are all going to die then that should not be any consideration.

BTW: We now have 8 years…Feeling the dread?

[Ceasar]

@TheRedComet

Exactly. The Chinese don’t have an excuse. They get protesters outside of their power plants they’ll just shoot them and throw their bodies into the cooling pools.

I do think we should have went heavily nuclear in the 1970s. Should have built a lot more plants than we ended up building. It’s clean and efficient power and it has the baseload capabilities that solar and wind do not provide.

I disagree, we should be building hydro power plants. They can now be built without impeding the water way with a side channel that goes out to the side of the stream & back in.

[Steel-W0LF]

@Ceasar

@TheRedComet

Exactly. The Chinese don’t have an excuse. They get protesters outside of their power plants they’ll just shoot them and throw their bodies into the cooling pools.

I do think we should have went heavily nuclear in the 1970s. Should have built a lot more plants than we ended up building. It’s clean and efficient power and it has the baseload capabilities that solar and wind do not provide.

I disagree, we should be building hydro power plants. They can now be built without impeding the water way with a side channel that goes out to the side of the stream & back in.

Jumping in here. I don’t think it needs to be an either/or thing. I think power generation needs to be much more regionalized or even localized.

Areas that can support hydro should definitely build it. Areas that can’t should combo nuclear/gas/wind in whatever combo the area supports.

I absolutely hate the grid system we currently have. The grids need to be tied together so one region can help support a neighboring region. But why a substation going down knocks out power in 4 states is stupid.

[TheRedComet]

Hydro is good, but you can’t build it everywhere. Got to have flowing water.

A nuclear plant can basically be built anywhere.

Like SteelWolf said, both should be used.

[Borgia_dude]

@Steel-W0LF

absolutely hate the grid system we currently have. The grids need to be tied together so one region can help support a neighboring region. But why a substation going down knocks out power in 4 states is stupid.

So you don’t support Texas cutting itself off from the rest of the country’s grid?

[Steel-W0LF]

@Borgia_dude

@Steel-W0LF

absolutely hate the grid system we currently have. The grids need to be tied together so one region can help support a neighboring region. But why a substation going down knocks out power in 4 states is stupid.

So you don’t support Texas cutting itself off from the rest of the country’s grid?

If they want to I’m fine with them doing it. But I don’t think it’s smart.

The grid should be compartmentalized. And it can be done all the way down to the neighborhood level. When a line goes down breakers are tripped and power flows around the damaged area until it’s fixed and reset.

Currently it’s just a poorly designed system based off getting power from point A to point B rather than a true grid like system.

[DougBH]

"If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a “tipping point” and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.

After that point is reached, it would be too late for any action."

An Inconvenient Truth movie review (2006) | Roger Ebert

[Borgia_dude]

@DougBH

"If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a “tipping point” and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.

You know that quote doesn’t support the thread title, right?

[DougBH]

@Borgia_dude

@DougBH

"If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a “tipping point” and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.

You know that quote doesn’t support the thread title, right?

Of course not. It is meant to show that the 10 year rule is brought up regularly.

[Borgia_dude]

@DougBH

@Borgia_dude

@DougBH

"If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a “tipping point” and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.

You know that quote doesn’t support the thread title, right?

Of course not. It is meant to show that the 10 year rule is brought up regularly.

Ok, cool.

[Rodeo]

Kerry is a corrupt fool.

People like Lurch Kerry have been telling us we are a decade away from a horrible crisis for my entire life…

And they are always wrong.

[Ceasar]

@Borgia_dude

@DougBH

"If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a “tipping point” and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.

You know that quote doesn’t support the thread title, right?

I think it’s quite relevant to the thread

[gooddad409]

@Rodeo

Kerry is a corrupt fool.

People like Lurch Kerry have been telling us we are a decade away from a horrible crisis for my entire life…

And they are always wrong.

Life on earth will be here untill God decides otherwise. It is in the hands of God not libs.