MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The Biden recession is coming. Brace yourselves.  (Read 30739 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: July 26, 2022, 15:30 »
+5
Too bad this facts don't fit in the equation in this summers European record temperatures

;D



The table is interesting. I cannot judge from which source it comes and how up-to-date it is.

It obviously shows global temperature records from 123 years - from 1887 to 2010.

Highlighted in yellow are less than 30% of the heat records - those from 1887 to 1951 - that is, from the earlier 52% of the statistics.

Shown in white are more than 60% of the heat records from the remaining 48% of the more recent years.

Very specifically, compared to the 64 years from 1887 to 1951, more than twice as many heat records are in the most recent period of the past 34 years between 1976 and 2010.

This speaks for itself - so thank you for your overview.

I am rock solidly convinced that the table would look even clearer if the very recent trends were included.

A few days ago, temperature records were broken in 6 of 17 German states. Even more extreme were the records in Great Britain...


« Reply #151 on: July 26, 2022, 15:35 »
+2
By the way: in Germany, the value of 40.3 degrees in Kitzingen has long been outdated. In 2019, 41.2 degrees were measured in Duisburg.

« Reply #152 on: July 26, 2022, 16:43 »
+3
Funny Scientific Fact:

In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.

Is that the best you can do? Just make up some stuff?

It's neither funny, nor scientific, nor a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere


« Reply #153 on: July 26, 2022, 18:58 »
+2
...A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. ...

wow! 50 out of 12000 members!  https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/membership/

among other policy statements of the SOCIETY, you obviously ignored:

Climate ChangeThe Basics https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/policy/policy-memos/
As a public issue, climate change boils down to four overarching findings:
1) climate is changing,
2) people are causing climate to change,
3) human caused climate change poses serious risks to society, and
4) we have numerous options for managing climate change risks.


How Trustworthy Are Scientific Assessments of Climate Change?
Scientific evidence relating to the climate system and the impact that people might be having on it spans dozens of fields of study and includes work from tens of thousands of individual scientists. The evidence comes from decades of intensive research and is based on observations, field and laboratory experiments, and model simulations.

« Reply #154 on: July 26, 2022, 19:09 »
+2



Very specifically, compared to the 64 years from 1887 to 1951, more than twice as many heat records are in the most recent period of the past 34 years between 1976 and 2010.

This speaks for itself - so thank you for your overview.

I am rock solidly convinced that the table would look even clearer if the very recent trends were included.

A few days ago, temperature records were broken in 6 of 17 German states. Even more extreme were the records in Great Britain...

and more to the point, not only are individual records being broken, but average temperatures are rising.  eg, last year seattle has 3 days in a row over 100 deg F (38 C), setting new records; previously Seattle had officially only hit 100 three times 

Most Hot Days
Total days per year on average when Seattle had temperatures of at least 90 F (32 C)
Days                   Decade
Highest   6   2010s
Runner-up   4   1970s

« Reply #155 on: July 27, 2022, 01:25 »
+3
Too bad this facts don't fit in the equation in this summers European record temperatures

;D



Again, confusing temperature with climate and not understanding that single high temperature records don't have much menaing: For example, According to your numbers Island might have had a record of 30.5 degrees in 1939 on a single day - Doesn't say much about whether the avarage temperature in the year 1939 was higher or lower than in for example 2022.

Here is an overview of the annual temperature by year in Stykkishlmur, Island:
« Last Edit: July 27, 2022, 03:10 by Firn »

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #156 on: July 27, 2022, 04:09 »
+6
I wouldnt waste my time arguing with the specific numbers and assuming this data is given in good faith. Poster has a history of scatter gunning bulls**t into this forum and just moving on to the next thing as soon as the points are addressed. I would give them the curtsey of assuming they arent dumb enough to keep believing their sources when they are so frequently and easily disproved.

For example take any of their highlighted countries and put them in here:

https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/poland/climate-data-historical

You get a nice easy to understand graphic of Observed Annual Mean Temperature which makes it painfully obvious the kind of cherry picking going on.

It only takes them a moment to post the next piece of BS that takes many posts to refute and they are straight onto the next one. Makes it look like there is still uncertainty or debate about this amongst sane, rational people. Which there absolutely isnt. The BBC article about the misinformation campaign I posted earlier spells out some of these strategies.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2022, 04:23 by Justanotherphotographer »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #157 on: July 27, 2022, 06:18 »
+2
And what are the odds those 50 members are on the payroll of some kind of fossil fuel company?

« Reply #158 on: July 27, 2022, 18:27 »
+3
And what are the odds those 50 members are on the payroll of some kind of fossil fuel company?

some may just be independently ignorant

« Reply #159 on: July 27, 2022, 18:48 »
+2
...

For example take any of their highlighted countries and put them in here:

https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/poland/climate-data-historical

You get a nice easy to understand graphic of Observed Annual Mean Temperature which makes it painfully obvious the kind of cherry picking going on.....

great link & the color display dramatically makes the point about warming.  odd india & turkey (my favorite travel destinations) arent listed

« Reply #160 on: July 28, 2022, 05:03 »
+1
You make it sound like the USA is right on track for environmental issues, Joe, but I doubt whether this is true. A lot of damage was done by your former administration in particular.

Hey Annie, how are you?
The thing is that I don't put a lot of faith in political solutions for environmental issues.
It does not matter what country you want to talk about the truth is if environmental issues cause jobs you can bet politicians will drop the environmental issues like hot potatoes.
Look at the Paris accords. Not one nation is going to keep its promises and the goals of the accords.
They never have and they never will. It's all just a bunch of hot air.
https://theconversation.com/australia-is-undermining-the-paris-agreement-no-matter-what-morrison-says-we-need-new-laws-to-stop-this-170198
I place my faith in technology. There are literally hundreds of projects to solve various environmental problems being worked on here plus more in western Europe and I'm sure in Australia and other places as well. Most of the innovations always come out of American labs, so that is where I put a lot of faith.
The trick is for corporations to save money or to make more money for them to jump on a new technology.
Corporations are not stupid and will not go with a non solution that costs money. Here in America the change over from coal to natural gas is going very well but not in a wasteful, stupid, job costing manner. Unproductive and old coal plants are getting replaced with new natural gas plants plus a lot of wind energy and more geothermal. Yup, we are doing and not talking like they do in Paris.
You paid for your solar installation in three years?
You must have had atrocious electric bills or your installation must have been nearly free.
My electric bill is around $120 a month, except for slightly higher bills in June, a LOT higher bills in July and slightly higher in August. Here in Texas average conversions cost around $25,000. Yes, a young person like you can make that pay over the years IF you stay in your home. There is absolutely no way I can make a conversion pay.   
It also does not do a lot of good if China and Russia pollute with abandon and then the western nations are supposed to clean up the environment. Trump is right in that regard. Biden is plodding along, very deliberate and very cautious. It's one thing to talk like a President and something else to be one. Germany is a good example too. They are now starting up coal plants to make up for the lost natural gas from Russia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow
Jobs trump every issue.
Speaking of talking, Australia exports massive amounts of coal, so any talk about conservation at home is pretty much useless when coal and oil get sold to the polluters. It's just talk.
https://www.energy.gov.au/data/energy-trade
This Australian article says it all.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australias-fossil-fuel-expansion-plans-equivalent-to-over-200-new-coal-power-stations/

In the mean time in the US
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/02/us-coal-use-on-the-rise-but-renewables-continue-rapid-growth/



« Last Edit: July 28, 2022, 06:23 by UPLOAD-UPLOAD-UPLOAD »

Milleflore

« Reply #161 on: July 28, 2022, 06:29 »
+1
You make it sound like the USA is right on track for environmental issues, Joe, but I doubt whether this is true. A lot of damage was done by your former administration in particular.

Hey Annie, how are you?
The thing is that I don't put a lot of faith in political solutions for environmental issues.
It does not matter what country you want to talk about the truth is if environmental issues cause jobs you can bet politicians will drop the environmental issues like hot potatoes.
Look at the Paris accords. Not one nation is going to keep its promises and the goals of the accords.
They never have and they never will. It's all just a bunch of hot air.
https://theconversation.com/australia-is-undermining-the-paris-agreement-no-matter-what-morrison-says-we-need-new-laws-to-stop-this-170198
I place my faith in technology. There are literally hundreds of projects to solve various environmental problems being worked on here plus more in western Europe and I'm sure in Australia and other places as well. Most of the innovations always come out of American labs, so that is where I put a lot of faith.
The trick is for corporations to save money or to make more money for them to jump on a new technology.
Corporations are not stupid and will not go with a non solution that costs money. Here in America the change over from coal to natural gas is going very well but not in a wasteful, stupid, job costing manner. Unproductive and old coal plants are getting replaced with new natural gas plants plus a lot of wind energy and more geothermal. Yup, we are doing and not talking like they do in Paris.
You paid for your solar installation in three years?
You must have had atrocious electric bills or your installation must have been nearly free.
My electric bill is around $120 a month, except for slightly higher bills in June, a LOT higher bills in July and slightly higher in August. Here in Texas average conversions cost around $25,000. Yes, a young person like you can make that pay over the years IF you stay in your home. There is absolutely no way I can make a conversion pay.   
It also does not do a lot of good if China and Russia pollute with abandon and then the western nations are supposed to clean up the environment. Trump is right in that regard. Biden is plodding along, very deliberate and very cautious. It's one thing to talk like a President and something else to be one. Germany is a good example too. They are now starting up coal plants to make up for the lost natural gas from Russia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow
Jobs trump every issue.
Speaking of talking, Australia exports massive amounts of coal, so any talk about conservation at home is pretty much useless when coal and oil get sold to the polluters. It's just talk.
https://www.energy.gov.au/data/energy-trade

Yes, Joe, I mentioned Australia when I opened up the discussion on this thread about climate change, and what are governments around the world doing. Plus I have talked about it on another thread recently. I have been campaigning here in Australia for a few years against coal production. It has to end. And fortunately we recently changed our Federal Government. Scott Morrison is no longer our Prime Minister.

But I was addressing your comments about USA being on track. Fortunately, the Biden/Harris administration is making some headway but last month the conservative majority of your Supreme Court has dealt them a huge blow (mentioned in my previous reply to you).

USA is one of the worse offenders in the world. Australia because of coal production is up there too but China, despite their population, is becoming the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-renewable-energy-superpower/?sh=746a4fe0745a

And, Joe - natural gas is a fossil fuel composed mainly of methane. It just seems to be a waste of time and money converting to natural gas, when it still presents a problem.

Refer: Why Natural Gas is Dangerous for the Climate.

https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-gas/why-natural-gas-is-dangerous-for-the-climate/

« Last Edit: July 29, 2022, 00:12 by Annie »

Milleflore

« Reply #162 on: July 28, 2022, 06:35 »
+1
I wouldnt waste my time arguing with the specific numbers and assuming this data is given in good faith. Poster has a history of scatter gunning bulls**t into this forum and just moving on to the next thing as soon as the points are addressed. I would give them the curtsey of assuming they arent dumb enough to keep believing their sources when they are so frequently and easily disproved.

For example take any of their highlighted countries and put them in here:

https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/poland/climate-data-historical

You get a nice easy to understand graphic of Observed Annual Mean Temperature which makes it painfully obvious the kind of cherry picking going on.

It only takes them a moment to post the next piece of BS that takes many posts to refute and they are straight onto the next one. Makes it look like there is still uncertainty or debate about this amongst sane, rational people. Which there absolutely isnt. The BBC article about the misinformation campaign I posted earlier spells out some of these strategies.

Thanks for this.

As for the first part - yes, I have noticed that too.

« Reply #163 on: July 28, 2022, 08:09 »
+1
You make it sound like the USA is right on track for environmental issues, Joe, but I doubt whether this is true. A lot of damage was done by your former administration in particular.

Hey Annie, how are you?
The thing is that I don't put a lot of faith in political solutions for environmental issues.
It does not matter what country you want to talk about the truth is if environmental issues cause jobs you can bet politicians will drop the environmental issues like hot potatoes.
Look at the Paris accords. Not one nation is going to keep its promises and the goals of the accords.
They never have and they never will. It's all just a bunch of hot air.
https://theconversation.com/australia-is-undermining-the-paris-agreement-no-matter-what-morrison-says-we-need-new-laws-to-stop-this-170198
I place my faith in technology. There are literally hundreds of projects to solve various environmental problems being worked on here plus more in western Europe and I'm sure in Australia and other places as well. Most of the innovations always come out of American labs, so that is where I put a lot of faith.
The trick is for corporations to save money or to make more money for them to jump on a new technology.
Corporations are not stupid and will not go with a non solution that costs money. Here in America the change over from coal to natural gas is going very well but not in a wasteful, stupid, job costing manner. Unproductive and old coal plants are getting replaced with new natural gas plants plus a lot of wind energy and more geothermal. Yup, we are doing and not talking like they do in Paris.
You paid for your solar installation in three years?
You must have had atrocious electric bills or your installation must have been nearly free.
My electric bill is around $120 a month, except for slightly higher bills in June, a LOT higher bills in July and slightly higher in August. Here in Texas average conversions cost around $25,000. Yes, a young person like you can make that pay over the years IF you stay in your home. There is absolutely no way I can make a conversion pay.   
It also does not do a lot of good if China and Russia pollute with abandon and then the western nations are supposed to clean up the environment. Trump is right in that regard. Biden is plodding along, very deliberate and very cautious. It's one thing to talk like a President and something else to be one. Germany is a good example too. They are now starting up coal plants to make up for the lost natural gas from Russia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow
Jobs trump every issue.
Speaking of talking, Australia exports massive amounts of coal, so any talk about conservation at home is pretty much useless when coal and oil get sold to the polluters. It's just talk.
https://www.energy.gov.au/data/energy-trade

Yes, Joe, I mentioned Australia when I opened up the discussion on this thread about climate change, and what are governments around the world doing. Plus I have talked about it on another thread recently. I have been campaigning here in Australia for a few years against coal production. It has to end. And fortunately we recently changed our Federal Government. Scott Morrison is no longer our Prime Minister.

But I was addressing your comments about USA being on track. Fortunately, the Biden/Harris administration is making some headway but last month the conservative majority of your Supreme Court has dealt them a huge blow (mentioned in my previous reply to you).

USA is one of the worse offenders in the world. Australia because of coal production is up there too but China, despite their population, is now the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources. See attached worldwide emissions graph.

And, Joe - natural gas is a fossil fuel composed mainly of methane. It just seems to be a waste of time and money converting to natural gas, when it still presents a problem.

Refer: Why Natural Gas is Dangerous for the Climate.

https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-gas/why-natural-gas-is-dangerous-for-the-climate/

From my perspective, there is another big issue with gas supply in the United States, Annie.

A significant amount of the gas is now being extracted by fracking, which uses chemicals that have already contaminated the groundwater there in places. In addition, gas is a bridging technology - to which, for the reasons you mentioned, it must not be seen as a forward-looking solution, but only as an intermediate step....

Here, in the city of Kiel, there was a coal-fired power plant until recently that supplied the city with heat to a large extent. This coal-fired power plant was replaced by a modern gas-fired power plant. Now we have the problem that too little comes from Russia and we have to look for other sources of gas supply.


« Reply #164 on: July 28, 2022, 08:36 »
0

From my perspective, there is another big issue with gas supply in the United States, Annie.

A significant amount of the gas is now being extracted by fracking, which uses chemicals that have already contaminated the groundwater there in places. In addition, gas is a bridging technology - to which, for the reasons you mentioned, it must not be seen as a forward-looking solution, but only as an intermediate step....

Here, in the city of Kiel, there was a coal-fired power plant until recently that supplied the city with heat to a large extent. This coal-fired power plant was replaced by a modern gas-fired power plant. Now we have the problem that too little comes from Russia and we have to look for other sources of gas supply.

Be careful Wilm. See my previous post about Russia's interest in the energy industry and their interference with the climate change "debate".
A lot of the noise around fracking originates from the same Russian troll farm trained to create controversy favoring Russia's interests. It's very clear that Russia didn't like the competition they had to face when fracking took off.
Don't fall for it.

Standard drilling is also polluting. Besides, those water contamination problems were mainly an issue during the early stages of fracking, when the technology was not completely mastered.
It's not really a problem with modern fracking wells more than it is with standard oil wells.

Even climate change activists should acknowledge that, while obviously not satisfactory long term, the extra boost of gas and oil from fracking is a step forward compared with coal-based energy production.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2022, 08:43 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #165 on: July 28, 2022, 13:47 »
+1

From my perspective, there is another big issue with gas supply in the United States, Annie.

A significant amount of the gas is now being extracted by fracking, which uses chemicals that have already contaminated the groundwater there in places. In addition, gas is a bridging technology - to which, for the reasons you mentioned, it must not be seen as a forward-looking solution, but only as an intermediate step....

Here, in the city of Kiel, there was a coal-fired power plant until recently that supplied the city with heat to a large extent. This coal-fired power plant was replaced by a modern gas-fired power plant. Now we have the problem that too little comes from Russia and we have to look for other sources of gas supply.

Be careful Wilm. See my previous post about Russia's interest in the energy industry and their interference with the climate change "debate".
A lot of the noise around fracking originates from the same Russian troll farm trained to create controversy favoring Russia's interests. It's very clear that Russia didn't like the competition they had to face when fracking took off.
Don't fall for it.

Standard drilling is also polluting. Besides, those water contamination problems were mainly an issue during the early stages of fracking, when the technology was not completely mastered.
It's not really a problem with modern fracking wells more than it is with standard oil wells.

Even climate change activists should acknowledge that, while obviously not satisfactory long term, the extra boost of gas and oil from fracking is a step forward compared with coal-based energy production.

Hmmm, the essential information in this case comes from our federal government and our Federal Environmental Agency. To what extent they are influenced by Russian trolls, I don't know.

« Reply #166 on: July 28, 2022, 14:08 »
+2
Eventually economics will sink the coal industry, but not until a lot more damage. I would say that legislation has made a huge difference in the environment in instances like the clean air act and the clean water act. At a minimum the legislation should stop encouraging damaging technology and practices.

At one time the conservatives and economists agreed that a carbon tax was the way to encourage change. Then when it looked like it could actually pass, they balked (not the economists, the so called conservatives). It is a global problem and local solutions can't fully solve it, but the US (or any other country) could lead the way and show what is possible. There are benefits beyond just dropping CO2 emissions - like not being beholden to say, Russia or Saudi Arabia and not having thousands of extra deaths from air pollution.

« Reply #167 on: July 28, 2022, 15:01 »
+1

From my perspective, there is another big issue with gas supply in the United States, Annie.

A significant amount of the gas is now being extracted by fracking, which uses chemicals that have already contaminated the groundwater there in places. In addition, gas is a bridging technology - to which, for the reasons you mentioned, it must not be seen as a forward-looking solution, but only as an intermediate step....

Here, in the city of Kiel, there was a coal-fired power plant until recently that supplied the city with heat to a large extent. This coal-fired power plant was replaced by a modern gas-fired power plant. Now we have the problem that too little comes from Russia and we have to look for other sources of gas supply.

Be careful Wilm. See my previous post about Russia's interest in the energy industry and their interference with the climate change "debate".
A lot of the noise around fracking originates from the same Russian troll farm trained to create controversy favoring Russia's interests. It's very clear that Russia didn't like the competition they had to face when fracking took off.
Don't fall for it.

Standard drilling is also polluting. Besides, those water contamination problems were mainly an issue during the early stages of fracking, when the technology was not completely mastered.
It's not really a problem with modern fracking wells more than it is with standard oil wells.

Even climate change activists should acknowledge that, while obviously not satisfactory long term, the extra boost of gas and oil from fracking is a step forward compared with coal-based energy production.

Hmmm, the essential information in this case comes from our federal government and our Federal Environmental Agency. To what extent they are influenced by Russian trolls, I don't know.

Context is important.
Many statements may be true when compared with "green" energy.
But as long as the government is OK with traditional oil and gas drilling (including massive imports from Russia), fracking must be compared with it. Apples with apples.

For example, I don't think there was any fracking incident that caused a disaster as big as the Deepwater Horizon spill, and yet Germany and some other countries are Ok with traditional oil drilling but are banning fracking.  ???
Probably because we are so familiar with traditional oil drilling and we learned to accept its cons.
But if traditional oil drilling would have been discovered today, rest assured it would have been banned in some places as well, the same way fracking is banned.

Here is an analysis from 2015: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/
« Last Edit: July 28, 2022, 15:03 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #168 on: July 28, 2022, 15:42 »
+1

From my perspective, there is another big issue with gas supply in the United States, Annie.

A significant amount of the gas is now being extracted by fracking, which uses chemicals that have already contaminated the groundwater there in places. In addition, gas is a bridging technology - to which, for the reasons you mentioned, it must not be seen as a forward-looking solution, but only as an intermediate step....

Here, in the city of Kiel, there was a coal-fired power plant until recently that supplied the city with heat to a large extent. This coal-fired power plant was replaced by a modern gas-fired power plant. Now we have the problem that too little comes from Russia and we have to look for other sources of gas supply.

Be careful Wilm. See my previous post about Russia's interest in the energy industry and their interference with the climate change "debate".
A lot of the noise around fracking originates from the same Russian troll farm trained to create controversy favoring Russia's interests. It's very clear that Russia didn't like the competition they had to face when fracking took off.
Don't fall for it.

Standard drilling is also polluting. Besides, those water contamination problems were mainly an issue during the early stages of fracking, when the technology was not completely mastered.
It's not really a problem with modern fracking wells more than it is with standard oil wells.

Even climate change activists should acknowledge that, while obviously not satisfactory long term, the extra boost of gas and oil from fracking is a step forward compared with coal-based energy production.

Hmmm, the essential information in this case comes from our federal government and our Federal Environmental Agency. To what extent they are influenced by Russian trolls, I don't know.

Context is important.
Many statements may be true when compared with "green" energy.
But as long as the government is OK with traditional oil and gas drilling (including massive imports from Russia), fracking must be compared with it. Apples with apples.

For example, I don't think there was any fracking incident that caused a disaster as big as the Deepwater Horizon spill, and yet Germany and some other countries are Ok with traditional oil drilling but are banning fracking.  ???
Probably because we are so familiar with traditional oil drilling and we learned to accept its cons.
But if traditional oil drilling would have been discovered today, rest assured it would have been banned in some places as well, the same way fracking is banned.

Here is an analysis from 2015: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/

The population density in the USA is about 34 inhabitants per square kilometer. In Germany, we are at about 230 inhabitants per square kilometer.

I think that the different ways of dealing with the issue of fracking is also due to these figures.

In the USA, fracking takes place in many places where only a few people live and where the risk of direct danger to the population is therefore lower than it would be in any place in Germany.

I therefore assume that the German government has a different attitude towards fracking than the US government.

Our federal government writes in the wording that there is not enough knowledge about fracking and its impact on the environment and local residents to allow fracking for industrial purposes. It is allowed and done on a small scale in the research sector.

« Reply #169 on: July 28, 2022, 16:05 »
0
.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/

The population density in the USA is about 34 inhabitants per square kilometer. In Germany, we are at about 230 inhabitants per square kilometer.

I think that the different ways of dealing with the issue of fracking is also due to these figures.

In the USA, fracking takes place in many places where only a few people live and where the risk of direct danger to the population is therefore lower than it would be in any place in Germany.

I therefore assume that the German government has a different attitude towards fracking than the US government.

Our federal government writes in the wording that there is not enough knowledge about fracking and its impact on the environment and local residents to allow fracking for industrial purposes. It is allowed and done on a small scale in the research sector.

Yes, but I wonder if the same ban would be applied if traditional oil is discovered on German land. Probably not.
And btw, I can see many fracking wells near densely populated Cleveland, San Antonio, etc (for example), see the attached maps (black dots = fracking wells).

It is striking that through fracking, Germany could have probably avoided reopening coal power plants (known to be more polluting than gas or oil power plants), stopped its unhealthy dependency on Russian gas and oil, and stopped sponsoring Putin's war machine.

Banning fracking was a big political mistake (when Merkel didn't gather enough support to go ahead with her intentions).
« Last Edit: August 01, 2022, 09:06 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #170 on: July 29, 2022, 02:12 »
+2
And, Joe - natural gas is a fossil fuel composed mainly of methane. It just seems to be a waste of time and money converting to natural gas, when it still presents a problem.
Natural gas is a clean burning very low polluting energy source. It's so clean you can burn it in your home without having an exhaust.
This fuel will have to see us until nuclear or fusion become options. Fusion is the ideal but every 30 years it's only 30 years from becoming reality.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php

Regarding solar and wind energy, America is building that infrastructure very rapidly.
They all come with their problems. Solar panels are resource hogs and especially when combined with batteries.
We are replacing the old coal fired plants with natural gas, solar, wind and geothermal energy.
Yes, it all takes time. About 30 years to replace all coal fired plants. However, unlike Germany, Australia and a lot of other places
we are not building anymore coal plants. I don't want to pick on Germany just because Mutti Merckerl screwed up Germany's energy
plan. Nobody is perfect. I like to pick on the EU because they do a lot of bragging but little in the way of making progress.

Nuclear power comes with a crap load of problems, so for the next 30 or so years natural gas is the king of energy.
Let's not forget carbon sequestration. New technologies are in the labs in universities all over America.
Turning CO2 into gasoline is a great way to go if we can get the costs down.
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/02/09/turning-carbon-dioxide-gasoline-efficiently/
I think it's silly to play the blame game because every nation is different and has different infrastructure and needs.
The title of this thread is also stupid. As if the Republicans actually have a plan to keep the economy humming with no inflation.
It's all stupid talk.
Texas and California are bigger than the entire EU in both land mass and especially in GDP.
So yeah, we have to burn a whole lot more fuel to run our economies.
Massachusetts and California are the technology powerhouses of the world.
Actually Massachusetts is the technology leader, but California has the largest tech corporations.
Texas, a Republican state lags way behind in technology. Way behind Democrat controlled Massachusetts and California.
So all that talk is really nonsense. The corporations and not the politicians control most of the power and produce all of the innovation.

« Last Edit: July 29, 2022, 02:46 by UPLOAD-UPLOAD-UPLOAD »

« Reply #171 on: July 29, 2022, 02:43 »
0
If I interpret the graph Annie posted correctly, the decline in CO2 emissions has been greatest in Germany.
At the same time, it is a pity that the topic of biogas, for example, has been neglected in the last two years. Only now is the topic coming back into focus. Biogas now has a share of over 50% of renewable energies for electricity and heat generation here - more than wind power and photovoltaics combined. This needs to be expanded even further.

At first glance, natural gas is more environmentally friendly than coal because it produces significantly less CO2 when burned. But both the extraction of natural gas in Russia, for example, and fracking release methane gases. Since methane is many times more harmful to the atmosphere than CO2, gas is not the miracle cure, but, as already mentioned, a bridging technology.

It is true, as I have already written: nuclear fusion could dramatically reduce many problems, but research is not yet as far advanced as we would like.

Milleflore

« Reply #172 on: July 29, 2022, 03:43 »
+1
Thanks to everyone who has participated, and thanks for all the exchange of info and ideas, not to mention we managed to get through 4 pages without any major battles and the thread staying intact. The latter being a surprising feat in itself. lol  I must admit I didn't expect such a big response when I first posted "forget the economy, etc, the climate will get us in the end".  ;)

And there was one recent post that seemed to get lost, which I thought summed up the situation fairly well:

Eventually economics will sink the coal industry, but not until a lot more damage. I would say that legislation has made a huge difference in the environment in instances like the clean air act and the clean water act. At a minimum the legislation should stop encouraging damaging technology and practices.

At one time the conservatives and economists agreed that a carbon tax was the way to encourage change. Then when it looked like it could actually pass, they balked (not the economists, the so called conservatives). It is a global problem and local solutions can't fully solve it, but the US (or any other country) could lead the way and show what is possible. There are benefits beyond just dropping CO2 emissions - like not being beholden to say, Russia or Saudi Arabia and not having thousands of extra deaths from air pollution.


So, now its back to the economy, war on Ukraine, and all the other problems of the world. I got a busy couple of weeks, so I'll leave those up to the rest of you to figure out.  Bye for now   :)
« Last Edit: July 29, 2022, 03:58 by Annie »

Just_to_inform_people2

« Reply #173 on: July 29, 2022, 15:53 »
+1
Hi, it's me Biden and I am making friends with a murderer because I need oil.

Bloody nauseating.

https://www.reuters.com/resizer/ZeJrOaL_mDYnPN1X43fucb_Odgk=/1200x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/5NMNCOEWXJJZRCH3TDDKGFY7IE.jpg
https://www.reuters.com/resizer/4GKnDH0KbvOVxlSC7L-KFXPzkGs=/1200x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/L6XY35ZUBZO2RK7IA3PX2D3HU4.jpg

And also Macron is making good friends with one of the most woman unfriendly, terrorist supporting nations in the world.
https://www.reuters.com/resizer/fA_SOX60rVd70Fu_ybpTD07EMrg=/1024x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/Y7P2L2IQUJLORJUGQATSNHFDRI.jpg

Keep it up guys with your hypocritical actions. And you sheep here, you cheer them on and on. It's quite pathetic.

And sure, you can place solar panels, place wind turbines divide your waste and renew it. But as long as you don't address the growing number of persons on this planet (especially in the Middle East and Africa) it's pretty useless. While you are dividing your paper, plastic and rest waste, in India they will dump a multitude of all that in the Ganges.

Some people here really believe that America and Europe is what the world consists of. They don't realise they are almost living in a museum which the rest of the world will just visit in a five decades or so. 750 + 330 = 1,080 of 7,800 is not even 14%. And getting smaller each decade. That's why in Europe they let in so many migrants, even though there is no room or money to support it. They hope these new people will become productive in the end because everything will be lost anyway. Especially after the big debt recession which is coming right about now.

So, your sales at the microstock agencies is the least you should worry about. Winter is coming and it will not contain Santa Clause and his elfs this year. You can't throw free money into a already debt burdened society and have a positive outcome in the end. We will pay the price for not taking the pain when covid hit. We fed and let the monster (inflation) in by lowering our interest rates (even below zero) to keep things afloat and now it will sink anyway.

« Reply #174 on: July 29, 2022, 19:06 »
+1
..
A significant amount of the gas is now being extracted by fracking, which uses chemicals that have already contaminated the groundwater there in places. In addition, gas is a bridging technology - to which, for the reasons you mentioned, it must not be seen as a forward-looking solution, but only as an intermediate step.......

fracking's rape of the environment:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/11/us-fracking-climate-fossil-fuel-gases

meanwhile... the General Mining Law of 1872, which helped build the nation also contributed to widespread damage to Americas lands and waters. That law still largely governs the mining on public lands for gold, silver, lithium, nickel and other hardrock minerals.
As the law now stands, taxpayers dont get a penny in royalties for the hardrock minerals mined by private companies on public land. And because it was not until the 1970s that mine operators were required to reclaim, or restore, the land once they were done with it, the destructive consequences of the extraction of those minerals remain today in scarred landscapes and polluted rivers.

Some 140,000 remnants of these mines are known to exist; some 22,500 pose or may pose risks to humans or wildlife from the pollution they spew. Hundreds of thousands more may be out there. An analysis by Mr. Woods organization, Trout Unlimited, of 2015 data from the Environmental Protection Agency found that an estimated 110,000 miles of streams in the lower 48 states are contaminated with heavy metals or acidity. Abandoned mines are a significant source of this pollution. Many of these streams are in watersheds that supply drinking water for communities and provide habitat for trout and salmon.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/28/opinion/clean-energy-mining-pollution.html


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3422 Views
Last post October 17, 2007, 13:34
by epixx
22 Replies
7809 Views
Last post October 29, 2007, 01:05
by null
25 Replies
12880 Views
Last post January 29, 2010, 02:21
by lagereek
22 Replies
8644 Views
Last post December 08, 2012, 19:22
by CD123
16 Replies
6080 Views
Last post October 21, 2014, 10:49
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors