4 ms·

I find it interesting that Bloomberg gets all hyped out about the consequences of Outer Space events that may eventually happen and we do not have any way to pr

I find it interesting that Bloomberg gets all hyped out about the consequences of Outer Space events that may eventually happen and we do not have any way to prevent, but cheerfully ignores the consequences, - and the very tangible costs, - of Climate Change here on Earth. "We can’t dodge, prevent or suppress solar flares. But we can increase funding for early-warning systems such as the Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado." Oh, wait. Nevermind... I get it now.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> that may eventually happen and we do not have any way to prevent We can't prevent a solar flare. We can prevent a lot of the damage by powering down, decoupling and/or shielding vulnerable equipment. Coronal mass ejections exhibit "transit times from the Sun out to the mean radius of Earth's orbit of about 13 hours to 86 days (extremes), with about 3.5 days as the average" [1]. That's enough time to react. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection
burkaman 10y ago
Why do you say they ignore climate change? Lots of articles, and it seems like the editorial stance is clearly that climate change is real and caused by humans: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/climate-change https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/climate-change I especially like this visualization: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...
CptJamesCook 10y ago
No one is very worried about the consequences of climate change here on earth. Exhibit A: The White House's official policy on climate change does not mention the word "nuclear" When Obama came into office, 66% of America's power was from fossil fuels. When Obama left office, 66% of America's power was from fossil fuels.
- cmurf 10y ago
  I don't think your last sentence is accurate. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cf...
  - wott 10y ago
    You table shows figures that sum up to 70-71% fossil fuel in 2008, and 66-67% in 2015. The major change is the shift from coal to gas but the total did not decrease as significantly.
    - dajohnson89 10y ago
      The oil price plummet, and the natural gas boom, both made it very hard economically to not use fossil fuels. I'm not making excuses, just providing an explanation.
- m0llusk 10y ago
  Nuclear is too dangerous, complex, and expensive to compete with solar wind and hydro. Rating the Obama administration time frame is complex because of the impacts of fracking on production, markets, and usage. Presidents actually have far less influence on energy use than industry and consumers.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> that may eventually happen and we do not have any way to prevent We can't prevent a solar flare. We can prevent a lot of the damage by powering down, decoupling and/or shielding vulnerable equipment. Coronal mass ejections exhibit "transit times from the Sun out to the mean radius of Earth's orbit of about 13 hours to 86 days (extremes), with about 3.5 days as the average" [1]. That's enough time to react. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection

burkaman 10y ago

Why do you say they ignore climate change? Lots of articles, and it seems like the editorial stance is clearly that climate change is real and caused by humans: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/climate-change https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/climate-change I especially like this visualization: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...

CptJamesCook 10y ago

No one is very worried about the consequences of climate change here on earth. Exhibit A: The White House's official policy on climate change does not mention the word "nuclear" When Obama came into office, 66% of America's power was from fossil fuels. When Obama left office, 66% of America's power was from fossil fuels.

cmurf 10y ago
I don't think your last sentence is accurate. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cf...
- wott 10y ago
  You table shows figures that sum up to 70-71% fossil fuel in 2008, and 66-67% in 2015. The major change is the shift from coal to gas but the total did not decrease as significantly.
  - dajohnson89 10y ago
    The oil price plummet, and the natural gas boom, both made it very hard economically to not use fossil fuels. I'm not making excuses, just providing an explanation.
m0llusk 10y ago
Nuclear is too dangerous, complex, and expensive to compete with solar wind and hydro. Rating the Obama administration time frame is complex because of the impacts of fracking on production, markets, and usage. Presidents actually have far less influence on energy use than industry and consumers.