President's Address concerning protecting this great nation's natural resources

[Dot Com]

*** No trolling/snarky comments (read the Environment sub-forum rules if you haven't already mkaythanks[pretty sad that I have to include these notifications in all Environment threads])


Your Weekly Address
October 24, 2015
Weekly Address: Protecting our Planet for Future Generations

WASHINGTON, DC — In this week's address, the President laid out the importance of serving as good stewards of the environment and maintaining the planet for generations to come. Since taking office the President has prioritized protecting the places that make America special. He has repeatedly said that no challenge poses a greater threat to our future than a changing climate, which is why he’s taken bold actions at home and encouraged historic action abroad on the issue. In his address, he encouraged Congress to reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund which has protected more than 5 million acres of land for more than half a century, without costing taxpayers a dime. Republicans in Congress let the fund expire despite strong bipartisan support. And he reminded us that we all have to do our part to address climate change, promote clean energy and energy efficiency, and ensure a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations.

The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online at www.whitehouse.govat 6:00 a.m. ET, October 24, 2015.

One of these areas is 10 miles down the road from me on the great Potomac River.

Is protecting something for posterity a bad thing?!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[irosie91]

strikes me that Obama wanted to talk about a "SAFE" topic-----
no war, no religion, no cosmic shifts--------SAVE THE GRAND CANYON

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, wasting trillions to reduce temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees is a bad thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, wasting trillions to reduce temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees is a bad thing.

Very nice flap-yap. Now back those numbers up.

 

[Dot Com]

strikes me that Obama wanted to talk about a "SAFE" topic-----
no war, no religion, no cosmic shifts--------SAVE THE GRAND CANYON

saving the environment from the various extraction industries is a safe topic?

 

[irosie91]

strikes me that Obama wanted to talk about a "SAFE" topic-----
no war, no religion, no cosmic shifts--------SAVE THE GRAND CANYON

saving the environment from the various extraction industries is a safe topic?

would be silly for him to address that issue

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, wasting trillions to reduce temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees is a bad thing.

Very nice flap-yap. Now back those numbers up.

How many trillions do you want us to waste?
How many PPM will that reduce CO2 levels in 2080?
How much will the lower CO2 level reduce temps in 2080?

You want to spend the money, you provide and backup the numbers.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Looks like the bull shit was running from his mouth pretty well. He even cloaked his socialist crap ideology with we must protect from those evil extractions people (aka: OIL AND GAS)..

Same Shit Different Day from the Marxist piece of shit in chief..

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, wasting trillions to reduce temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees is a bad thing.

Very nice flap-yap. Now back those numbers up.

How many trillions do you want us to waste?
How many PPM will that reduce CO2 levels in 2080?
How much will the lower CO2 level reduce temps in 2080?

You want to spend the money, you provide and backup the numbers.

You just repeated your silly flap-yap. So what is being proposed that will spend trillions? Is making electricity at less than current cost spending or saving money?

You are repeating a claim, and refusing even to back it up. Rather than costing us, reducing our emissions will save us money, for the new technologies produce electricity for less than the fossil fuels do.

 

[Old Rocks]

Looks like the bull shit was running from his mouth pretty well. He even cloaked his socialist crap ideology with we must protect from those evil extractions people (aka: OIL AND GAS)..

Same Shit Different Day from the Marxist piece of shit in chief..

Now silly Billy, go back to denying the fact of the existing El Nino. You are even more ignorant in politics than you are in science.

 

[westwall]

Yes, wasting trillions to reduce temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees is a bad thing.

Very nice flap-yap. Now back those numbers up.

Here is one from MIT where they want to spend 44 trillion. But they admit those costs could increase. This money to be expended by 2050.



"Major reports are concluding that stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change is possible and can be done at a relatively low cost. But the details of the reports make it clear that when you factor in real-world issues—such as delays in developing and implementing technology and policy—the cost of solving climate change gets much higher. Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by theInternational Energy Agency. That sounds like a lot of money, but the report also concludes that the switch to low-carbon technologies such as solar power—together with anticipated improvements in efficiency—will bring huge savings from reduced fossil-fuel consumption. As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead: the costs of switching will be paid for in fuel savings between now and 2050."

Cost of Solving Climate Change | MIT Technology Review



And here is the link to the actual UN report where they wish to expend 76 trillion dollars to remake the energy systems of the world.



http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, wasting trillions to reduce temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees is a bad thing.

Very nice flap-yap. Now back those numbers up.

How many trillions do you want us to waste?
How many PPM will that reduce CO2 levels in 2080?
How much will the lower CO2 level reduce temps in 2080?

You want to spend the money, you provide and backup the numbers.

You just repeated your silly flap-yap. So what is being proposed that will spend trillions? Is making electricity at less than current cost spending or saving money?

You are repeating a claim, and refusing even to back it up. Rather than costing us, reducing our emissions will save us money, for the new technologies produce electricity for less than the fossil fuels do.

So what is being proposed that will spend trillions?

Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion | Fox News

Is making electricity at less than current cost spending or saving money?

More expensive, less reliable "green energy" is wasting money.

the new technologies produce electricity for less than the fossil fuels do.

The windmills that produce at 20% of rated capacity cost less than fossil fuels? LOL!

 

[Old Rocks]

"Major reports are concluding that stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change is possible and can be done at a relatively low cost. But the details of the reports make it clear that when you factor in real-world issues—such as delays in developing and implementing technology and policy—the cost of solving climate change gets much higher. Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by theInternational Energy Agency. That sounds like a lot of money, but the report also concludes that the switch to low-carbon technologies such as solar power—together with anticipated improvements in efficiency—will bring huge savings from reduced fossil-fuel consumption. As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead: the costs of switching will be paid for in fuel savings between now and 2050."

Cost of Solving Climate Change | MIT Technology Review

Bother to read this through, Mr. Westwall? A change that will result in a savings. And that estimate does not include the saving in health care costs that result from the pollution from fossil fuels.

Toddster, that is cost to build. The savings over the cost of the fossil fuel generation will more than pay the costs. Not only that, since the technologies are scalable, unlike big fossil fuel plants, small units can be used for isolated areas. And, in fact, that is happening right now as more and more citizens have home solar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Major reports are concluding that stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change is possible and can be done at a relatively low cost. But the details of the reports make it clear that when you factor in real-world issues—such as delays in developing and implementing technology and policy—the cost of solving climate change gets much higher. Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by theInternational Energy Agency. That sounds like a lot of money, but the report also concludes that the switch to low-carbon technologies such as solar power—together with anticipated improvements in efficiency—will bring huge savings from reduced fossil-fuel consumption. As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead: the costs of switching will be paid for in fuel savings between now and 2050."

Cost of Solving Climate Change | MIT Technology Review

Bother to read this through, Mr. Westwall? A change that will result in a savings. And that estimate does not include the saving in health care costs that result from the pollution from fossil fuels.

Toddster, that is cost to build. The savings over the cost of the fossil fuel generation will more than pay the costs. Not only that, since the technologies are scalable, unlike big fossil fuel plants, small units can be used for isolated areas. And, in fact, that is happening right now as more and more citizens have home solar.

Yeah, when you ignore the additional cost of the fossil fuel backup needed for reliability, your cost seems much lower.

 

[Old Rocks]

The costs of the mills are rated on expected output, not the rated maximum output. And, yes, rated in that manner, they produce power for less money than do fossil fuel plants. And as we add grid scale batteries to the grid, and points of production and delivery, it will get even cheaper.

 

[Old Rocks]

Since we started adding solar and wind to the grid, the curve of the annual increase in energy costs as began to decrease.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now does that figure of 76 trillion refer to just the change over of fossil fuels to alternative sources, or does that include the cost of bring power to all the people on planet? I think that you people are purposely misleading on that.

 

[westwall]

"Major reports are concluding that stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change is possible and can be done at a relatively low cost. But the details of the reports make it clear that when you factor in real-world issues—such as delays in developing and implementing technology and policy—the cost of solving climate change gets much higher. Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by theInternational Energy Agency. That sounds like a lot of money, but the report also concludes that the switch to low-carbon technologies such as solar power—together with anticipated improvements in efficiency—will bring huge savings from reduced fossil-fuel consumption. As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead: the costs of switching will be paid for in fuel savings between now and 2050."

Cost of Solving Climate Change | MIT Technology Review

Bother to read this through, Mr. Westwall? A change that will result in a savings. And that estimate does not include the saving in health care costs that result from the pollution from fossil fuels.

Toddster, that is cost to build. The savings over the cost of the fossil fuel generation will more than pay the costs. Not only that, since the technologies are scalable, unlike big fossil fuel plants, small units can be used for isolated areas. And, in fact, that is happening right now as more and more citizens have home solar.

\






Of course I read it. And, no. They make claims about how much global warming is going to cost but they have nothing but conjecture to back up their OPINIONS! There is no empirical data to support what they say. Further they wish to spend the 76 trillion dollars and the goal of all of that money is to lower the global temp by ONE degree in 100 years, and they admit that it might not do even that.

Talk about the perfect scam! Makes those finance ministers from Nigeria look like rank amateurs!

 

[westwall]

Now does that figure of 76 trillion refer to just the change over of fossil fuels to alternative sources, or does that include the cost of bring power to all the people on planet? I think that you people are purposely misleading on that.

Read the report dude. That's why I gave you the link.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Major reports are concluding that stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change is possible and can be done at a relatively low cost. But the details of the reports make it clear that when you factor in real-world issues—such as delays in developing and implementing technology and policy—the cost of solving climate change gets much higher. Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by theInternational Energy Agency. That sounds like a lot of money, but the report also concludes that the switch to low-carbon technologies such as solar power—together with anticipated improvements in efficiency—will bring huge savings from reduced fossil-fuel consumption. As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead: the costs of switching will be paid for in fuel savings between now and 2050."

Cost of Solving Climate Change | MIT Technology Review

Bother to read this through, Mr. Westwall? A change that will result in a savings. And that estimate does not include the saving in health care costs that result from the pollution from fossil fuels.

Toddster, that is cost to build. The savings over the cost of the fossil fuel generation will more than pay the costs. Not only that, since the technologies are scalable, unlike big fossil fuel plants, small units can be used for isolated areas. And, in fact, that is happening right now as more and more citizens have home solar.

SO you believe in fairy tales, unicorn farts, long rainbows, and fairy dust..

The facts say your misinformed or and outright liar... so which is it?