• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

So you are advocating that others follow Germany's expensive, wasteful, and unproductive path?
Renewable or nothing is a false dichotomy.
 
awaken said:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ecause-they-were-never-meant-to/#fbcfb33ea2b9
Click to expand...

the Germans have become desperate to reclaim some moral virtue, beyond economic success; so they have tried open borders and have had to admit failure; they have also tried to revolutionize their energy sector in keeping with the latest environmentalist fashions, and have little to show for their huge investment other than despoiled countrysides and lots of dead birds

maybe they should concentrate on what they have proven to be good at: persistent hard work, classical music, science, beer, and soccer; there is plenty of virtue in these
 
awaken said:
So you are advocating that others follow Germany's expensive, wasteful, and unproductive path?
Renewable or nothing is a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

I'm saying you set goals. Sometimes you don't reach them but create great progress.

The one thing we can be sure about is if we listen to Trump and the ignorant RW in the US the Earth will warm and hundreds of millions of people will be displaced.
 
Nah, better to try and bust up the EU, create fear and division, and spur Germany on towards a military build up.


Says our dear Republican leader.
 
New study reported in paper says we can remove 2/3 of current man made CO2 from atmosphere by planting trees, could be more cost effective than the CO2 removing machines that are currently being developed. Study says there is sufficient open land around the earth to allow sufficient planting, need about 1000000 acres to effect changes. Funny, this was somewhat speculated when I was taking an ecology course at WFU 45 years ago.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
New study reported in paper says we can remove 2/3 of current man made CO2 from atmosphere by planting trees, could be more cost effective than the CO2 removing machines that are currently being developed. Study says there is sufficient open land around the earth to allow sufficient planting, need about 1000000 acres to effect changes. Funny, this was somewhat speculated when I was taking an ecology course at WFU 45 years ago.
Click to expand...

too practical for socialists, they gotta have a giant wasteful boondoggle like the Green New Deal to rally around and virtue signal, it makes them feel good about themselves, it's the socialist way, it always has been
 
bcobbdeacs said:
New study reported in paper says we can remove 2/3 of current man made CO2 from atmosphere by planting trees, could be more cost effective than the CO2 removing machines that are currently being developed. Study says there is sufficient open land around the earth to allow sufficient planting, need about 1000000 acres to effect changes. Funny, this was somewhat speculated when I was taking an ecology course at WFU 45 years ago.
Click to expand...

Who paid for the study?

Remember, the right's superstar Lindzen and tobacco CEO's testified, under oath to Congress that cigarettes aren't addictive and don't cause cancer.
 
awaken said:
So you are advocating that others follow Germany's expensive, wasteful, and unproductive path?
Renewable or nothing is a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

Unproductive? A huge reason that solar and wind are cheaper in some parts of the world today than new coal or gas is because Germany subsidized them when they were expensive, allowing industrial scale to innovate and bring down costs.
 
It’s a shame that when countries invest in long term returns, its derided as unproductive and wasteful.
 
sailordeac said:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ion-trees-could-be-most-effective-solution-to
Click to expand...

A TRILLION trees...that's a BILLION trees per year for 1000 years.

Currently, there are THREE trillion trees on the Earth. Where would the land come from to add 1/3 for this to happen?

By the way you and others have dishonestly forgotten to include the following:

"The study in the journal Science, first reported by The Associated Press, found that planting trees could be the most effective way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but cautioned that it would have little effect without a reduction of emissions around the globe."
 
RJKarl said:
A TRILLION trees...that's a BILLION trees per year for 1000 years.

Currently, there are THREE trillion trees on the Earth. Where would the land come from to add 1/3 for this to happen?

By the way you and others have dishonestly forgotten to include the following:

"The study in the journal Science, first reported by The Associated Press, found that planting trees could be the most effective way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but cautioned that it would have little effect without a reduction of emissions around the globe."
Click to expand...

RJKarl said:
If we can't do it, we should just give up and do none. You'll be dead anyway. So, why should you care about it anyway?
Click to expand...
 
RJKarl said:
A TRILLION trees...that's a BILLION trees per year for 1000 years.

Currently, there are THREE trillion trees on the Earth. Where would the land come from to add 1/3 for this to happen?

By the way you and others have dishonestly forgotten to include the following:

"The study in the journal Science, first reported by The Associated Press, found that planting trees could be the most effective way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but cautioned that it would have little effect without a reduction of emissions around the globe."
Click to expand...

RJ hates trees. Sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top