3 ms·

Does anyone have actual data that suggests any of these people have had a positive impact on "climate change?" Does anyone have any data that "Climate Change" i

Does anyone have actual data that suggests any of these people have had a positive impact on "climate change?" Does anyone have any data that "Climate Change" is even bad? Also, if everyone is SOOO concerned with CO2 emissions or waste in general why is Nuclear power not being discussed? It is only the most clean energy source on the planet considering waste to energy production lb for lb. Also, does anyone know the pollutants created making solar panels or super light weight material for wind mills? If not, why not? That is something to be concerned about is it not? Point is most if not all of you haven't a clue about "Climate Change" just like the political scene. For the last 60+ years "global cooling," "global warming," and lastly "climate change" have been used to make unethical people a lot of money playing off people's ignorance and fear.

ketzu 7y ago
'Does anyone have any data that "Climate Change" is even bad?' Depends on what you consider "bad". But there seems to be a lot of material that climate changes is mostly negative economical and health wise for humans. (e.g., http://www.oecd.org/env/the-economic-consequences-of-climate-change-9789264235410-en.htm http://www.oecd.org/env/the-economic-consequences-of-climate... ) 'Also, if everyone is SOOO concerned with CO2 emissions or waste in general why is Nuclear power not being discussed?' It's impossible to escape the nuclear discussion on this topics. Many threads about anything climate or CO2 related are full of discussion of nuclear. 'It is only the most clean energy source on the planet considering waste to energy production lb for lb.' I couldn't find any numbers on this, but I am willing to believe it. Could you provide a citation? I'd like to know more about it. 'Also, does anyone know the pollutants created making solar panels or super light weight material for wind mills?' It has been in mainstream news and outlets a few times, so I assume most people are aware that toxic materials are used to produce solar panels. As far as I can tell from the reports I saw, these can be disposed of reliably, and fairly easily while still being safe. (unlike nuclear waste as far as I can tell.) 'If not, why not?' Most people have limited capacities and do not concern themselves with everything. 'Point is most if not all of you haven't a clue' This is true for most people on most topics and has never stopped anyone from forming an option, discussing it on hackernews, or call people that might actually have a clue out on not having a clue.
imtringued 7y ago
>Does anyone have any data that "Climate Change" is even bad? The problem is that humans will keep emitting CO2 until it becomes dangerous. Thinking climate change isn't bad is falling right into that trap. It will be okay until it won't be ok. The problem can only be prevented ahead of time and if you wait and do nothing then the solution may never happen once it's too late. I don't understand how you can consider this to be a political problem about ignorance and fear. There are obvious economic downsides to using fossil fuels. They are expensive, inefficient, require significant maintenance, may cause increased background radiation (above levels of nuclear) simply through the sheer amount of material that they consume. In Germany they caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the photovoltaic industry in exchange for protecting 20000 jobs of coal workers by spending billions on keeping uneconomical ones alive. The fossil fuel industry is obsolete and dangerous to the public. It's holding us back, causing local health problems even if you ignore the CO2. In Germany renewables receive priority to feed in their electricity yet the coal plants keep running because they cannot throttle down significantly and since they keep running to secure jobs they are allowed to clog the electric grid even when renewables are available. "Baseload" is not a benefit. It means that the power source is inflexible and interferes with the grid. Then there are electric cars. They don't require expensive fuel and can be charged at home with cheap renewables. Maintenance costs are significantly lower. Overall the economics speak for themselves. Even if you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change you would be foolish to choose to be stuck in the past and ignore two of the most critical innovations of the 21th century.

ketzu 7y ago

'Does anyone have any data that "Climate Change" is even bad?' Depends on what you consider "bad". But there seems to be a lot of material that climate changes is mostly negative economical and health wise for humans. (e.g., http://www.oecd.org/env/the-economic-consequences-of-climate-change-9789264235410-en.htm http://www.oecd.org/env/the-economic-consequences-of-climate... ) 'Also, if everyone is SOOO concerned with CO2 emissions or waste in general why is Nuclear power not being discussed?' It's impossible to escape the nuclear discussion on this topics. Many threads about anything climate or CO2 related are full of discussion of nuclear. 'It is only the most clean energy source on the planet considering waste to energy production lb for lb.' I couldn't find any numbers on this, but I am willing to believe it. Could you provide a citation? I'd like to know more about it. 'Also, does anyone know the pollutants created making solar panels or super light weight material for wind mills?' It has been in mainstream news and outlets a few times, so I assume most people are aware that toxic materials are used to produce solar panels. As far as I can tell from the reports I saw, these can be disposed of reliably, and fairly easily while still being safe. (unlike nuclear waste as far as I can tell.) 'If not, why not?' Most people have limited capacities and do not concern themselves with everything. 'Point is most if not all of you haven't a clue' This is true for most people on most topics and has never stopped anyone from forming an option, discussing it on hackernews, or call people that might actually have a clue out on not having a clue.

imtringued 7y ago

>Does anyone have any data that "Climate Change" is even bad? The problem is that humans will keep emitting CO2 until it becomes dangerous. Thinking climate change isn't bad is falling right into that trap. It will be okay until it won't be ok. The problem can only be prevented ahead of time and if you wait and do nothing then the solution may never happen once it's too late. I don't understand how you can consider this to be a political problem about ignorance and fear. There are obvious economic downsides to using fossil fuels. They are expensive, inefficient, require significant maintenance, may cause increased background radiation (above levels of nuclear) simply through the sheer amount of material that they consume. In Germany they caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the photovoltaic industry in exchange for protecting 20000 jobs of coal workers by spending billions on keeping uneconomical ones alive. The fossil fuel industry is obsolete and dangerous to the public. It's holding us back, causing local health problems even if you ignore the CO2. In Germany renewables receive priority to feed in their electricity yet the coal plants keep running because they cannot throttle down significantly and since they keep running to secure jobs they are allowed to clog the electric grid even when renewables are available. "Baseload" is not a benefit. It means that the power source is inflexible and interferes with the grid. Then there are electric cars. They don't require expensive fuel and can be charged at home with cheap renewables. Maintenance costs are significantly lower. Overall the economics speak for themselves. Even if you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change you would be foolish to choose to be stuck in the past and ignore two of the most critical innovations of the 21th century.