Why Are We Fueling Our Own Extinction?

[Stringfellow Hawk]

...because we are failing to transition off fossil fuel fast enough.

you are right, we should denounce electricity, fossil fueled planes, trains, and automobiles. How I have longed for candle light, a good book, and a good horse Micawber to suck off.

 

[Micawber]

OK. First time I've seen THAT! Thanks for the explanation. (is that legal?)

I'll sue you for the punitive damages that you are giving me.

 

[Micawber]

How I have longed for candle light, a good book, and a good horse to ride me.

Fixed it for ya!

 

[Micawber]

You ought to be locked up , maggot- before the kids find you.

We are using Boeing 747 s to air drop on fires and PrimaErra thinks anyone cares what he thinks about climate change.
He's the one who needs a retardant drop.

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

Fixed it for ya!

hmm, me thinks you did not really see the quote:

you are right, we should denounce electricity, fossil fueled planes, trains, and automobiles. How I have longed for candle light, a good book, and a good horse Micawber to suck off.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Humans tend to be insanely greedy & materialistic.
We maximize profit & power to the expense of more vulnerable species & ethnics / races. We destroy the environment God's green Earth, we create cultures worthy of preservation & throw those away.

That's very true.

 

[Carmine]

Humans tend to be insanely greedy & materialistic.
We maximize profit & power to the expense of more vulnerable species & ethnics / races. We destroy the environment God's green Earth, we create cultures worthy of preservation & throw those away.

My Prozac dose is 40 mg.

What's yours, Jan?

 

[BattleofHodow]

My Prozac dose is 40 mg.

What's yours, Jan?

So, the sad truth, is crazy!?

 

[gemini104104]

That guy is truly insane!

Which guy because if you are talking about tRump, trolls and the GQP, then there are plenty of deranged and un American guys and gals in that regard who are a disgrace to the relevance of the common decency of civilization and its future?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

There's the Good, Bad, and UGLY!

You ring in at the UGLY spot!

AW-EE-AW-EE-AW.... DO-DO-DO!

Could be worse... You could be a Phugly...

 

[cancel2 2022]

...because we are failing to transition off fossil fuel fast enough.

Because ignorant cunts like you refuse to accept new nuclear, so go fuck yourself.

 

[Moosakofsky]

Nope. /MSG/ decided to thread ban him from every thread.

Every current events thread. Katzgar started too many threads in CE that had nothing to do with CE . I doubt he’ll learn . He’s pretty stupid.

 

[cancel2 2022]

We are using Boeing 747 s to air drop on fires and PrimaErra thinks anyone cares what he thinks about climate change.
He's the one who needs a retardant drop.

Well you, Madwitch and Moonshi'ite seem to care. Let it be known that nothing you say will stop me pointing out the truth, if you don't like that then kindly fuck off, there's a good chap!!

 

[cancel2 2022]

We are using Boeing 747 s to air drop on fires and PrimaErra thinks anyone cares what he thinks about climate change.
He's the one who needs a retardant drop.

Oh and there was only ever one 944 and it's days are numbered, shit for brains!!

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...747-supertanker-may-have-fought-its-last-fire

 

[Into the Night]

SIZE=3]'While the rest of us understand supply and demand theory, our politicians, slick from all that oil money gushing into their hands, seem unable to firmly grasp this basic theory.'

It seems abundantly clear that something any man, woman or child with a reasonable understanding of the scientific method

Science isn't a method or a procedure. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

will agree on is that we need to stop burning fossil fuels

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

if we are to avoid the breakdown of ecosystems

Define 'breakdown of ecosystem'.

and runaway global warming.

Define 'global warming'.

If you aren’t convinced, maybe the CEO of the world’s second-largest publicly traded oil and gas producer, Royal Dutch Shell, can convince you.

He never defined any of these terms either.

In 2020, Ben van Beurden said “The future of energy needs to evolve as something else, and we find a role for ourselves in it.” This is the same company that knew its product was causing the planet to warm, and yet for decades spent vast sums obfuscating the truth by funding myriad climate change denying think tanks and lobbying politicians across the globe. Ben van Beurden himself admitted his company’s guilt when he said,

“Yeah, we knew. Everybody knew, and somehow we all ignored it.” It was only in 2019 that Shell finally opted to leave the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers lobbyist group, citing an incompatible position on climate change as their reason for exiting.

Define 'climate change'.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

So, it is clear that we need to move away from burning any type of fossil fuel as a matter of urgency.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

Let’s try a little thought experiment.

Since you're not thinking, go ahead.

Imagine you are a world leader that deeply cares about your nation and its people, as we are all sure, our world leaders today do.

It's obvious that most world leaders could give a rats ass about the people under their regime.

It is your job therefore to transition your nation away from fossil fuels

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

in a quick fashion in order to avoid planetary collapse.

Define 'planetary collapse'.

Which of these two courses of action would you take? A) Continue to subsidize fossil fuel companies in order to reduce the cost of their products and increase their consumption,

There are no fossil fuel companies. Fossils don't burn.

or B) start to remove these subsidies in order to increase their cost and decrease their consumption while subsidizing the new energy sources that will replace oil, gas, and coal to make sure the population can afford them?

Fascism is not the answer.

You would think that most world leaders would opt for option B, knowing that this is the only way to reduce fossil fuel consumption However, this isn’t what is happening.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.


You are just spewing a load of undefined words and phrases in attempting to describe some kind of crisis. The Church of Global Warming is a false religion. Because it's also a fundamentalist style religion, there is no changing your mind. It is as closed as a old door with a rusty lock.

 

[Into the Night]

It is always about money. That is why corporations ignore pollution laws. That is why corporations cut safety. It is not that they do not know better but their greed overpowers their civic responsibility.

Define 'pollution'.

 

[Into the Night]

That's why--given the scenario above-- the quickest and cleanest transition is to nuclear and natural gas as the back up. This gets you to liquid hydrogen or ammonia as the portable fuel in a fuel cell and eliminates fossil fuels as the basis for transportation and vehicles.
It continues as a legacy as the conversion is made making this both fast and economical.

Going to wind and solar, as Germany has proven, is a fool's errand and eliminating nuclear is just plain stupid. So, why are government's doing stupid? Well, we know the answer...

They are full of idiots, morons, retards, and technical illiterates. Garbage disposal anyone?

Natural gas is a renewable fuel. Oil is a renewable fuel. Nuclear isn't renewable, but the amount of fuel used is very small. Coal is unknown, but it probably renewable as well.

None of them are fossils.

There is no best energy source. Manipulation of the energy market is fascism.

 

[Into the Night]

We are a short-lived species with too many of us unable to look more than a lifespan into the future to see what today's action/inaction might do. Plus too many of us are greedy and selfish both at the corporate level and the individual level. I'm as guilty as the rest of us.

Why do you feel so horrible about yourself? You must be real miserable. Must suck to be you.

 

[Into the Night]

You're a very naive man, Kenny. Wake the fuck up and stop spouting bollocks. There are many projects in train to transition to zero carbon. Ammonia, hydrogen and fourth generation nuclear are the future.

The Fuel Of The Future That is Nine Times More Efficient Than Lithium

https://www.yahoo.com/now/fuel-future-9-times-more-003000115.html

Three Advanced Reactor Systems to Watch by 2030

Lithium is not a practical fuel.
Batteries are not a fuel.
There is nothing wrong with carbon. It is a cheap fuel.
Hydrogen is a weak fuel. It is also expensive to produce, and requires a lot more energy to produce it than you get out of it.
Ammonia is a dangerous gas. Depending on what reacts with it, you can produce some really dangerous salts. Some are explosive, sensitive to shock, friction, or even a little heat.

Since you have no mind and just spend your time cutting and pasting, you wouldn't understand any of this.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Natural gas is a renewable fuel. Oil is a renewable fuel. Nuclear isn't renewable, but the amount of fuel used is very small. Coal is unknown, but it probably renewable as well.

Nuclear is renewable. For example using Thorium 232 in a breeder reactor creates Uranium 233 which is fissionable, thus creating more fuel.

None of them are fossils.

It's meant as a turn of phrase. In a sense, the organic portion of diatoms form new carbon fuels and their skeletons remain behind so...

There is no best energy source. Manipulation of the energy market is fascism.

Energy sources can be rated on their relative output by atomic weight for example, and then by how much it costs in the life cycle of the product to get that energy out. So, yes you could scale and rate sources and come up with a "best" one on that basis.