Why do you oppose cutting co2 emissions?

[Crick]

Why do you think such problems, which have been dealt with for many years, are suddenly being ignored? Did someone rescind the EPA regulations?

 

[westwall]

Why do you think such problems, which have been dealt with for many years, are suddenly being ignored? Did someone rescind the EPA regulations?

Very real problems ARE being ignored because the money that would have been used to mitigate them has been pissed away on bogus climate change "research".

 

[Olde Europe]

Hey Olde Europe -- Go find me the amount of coverage on honeybees. Or the raptor kills at wind farms, or the decline of the Salmon population. Or the MASSIVE USA problem of 60 year old nuclear waste rotting into the soil and the water tables at Savannah River or Hanford or Oak Ridge nuclear weapons labs. Or the effects of massive garbage pools in the oceans.

OR -- THE REAL ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS for bark beetles, oyster farming decline, or coral loss.. They've been BURIED if any of those problems could be assigned to a 1.0degC GMAST change in your lifetime.

Or cancer clusters related to herbicides. Or ANY of the OLD enviro causes. Where did the Ozone panic go to and how did it resolve? No ONE GIVES A FUCK -- if it cannot be related to GW/CC..

So, not even an attempt at addressing the argument, but yet another attempt at shifting the burden of proof. If you want to know about the issues, and the reporting on them, why don't you research them?

All the while, your ridiculous claim - the hype about AGW buried all other environment reporting - awaits your work. Have a go! Bold assertions don't count.

 

[mamooth]

Yeah. Much less than the security required for a chemical plant, refinery or major gas pipeline station..

Remind us, can those make a portion of the planet uninhabitable for decades (at a minimum) if breached?

And are people proposing to put on on every block, in inhabited areas, like there are with the mini-nukes?

 

[mamooth]

You're really stretching here. Compact reactor designs flew in deep space and long life orbital missions since the 60s.

Speaking of stretching, calling 100 watt thermionic nuclear batteries "reactors" is a huge one.

And I'm waiting on NuScale to go public or Hyperion -- to dump a BUNDLE of money into them..

It's your money. I'll just point out similar hype has been going on for the past 20 years.

 

[flacaltenn]

This hysteria and the priority of this one issue was taken to absurd Levels. Hence the VERY large portion of Obama's address to the Coast Guard Academy. Where this apocalyptic vision took up the vast majority of the priorities in the missions he was charging the Coast Guard with.

And this brings me to the challenge I want to focus on today -- one where our Coast Guardsmen are already on the front lines, and that, perhaps more than any other, will shape your entire careers -- and that’s the urgent need to combat and adapt to climate change.

As a nation, we face many challenges, including the grave threat of terrorism. And as Americans, we will always do everything in our power to protect our country. Yet even as we meet threats like terrorism, we cannot, and we must not, ignore a peril that can affect generations.

Now, I know there are still some folks back in Washington who refuse to admit that climate change is real. And on a day like today, it’s hard to get too worried about it. There are folks who will equivocate. They’ll say, “You know, I’m not a scientist.” Well, I’m not either. But the best scientists in the world know that climate change is happening. Our analysts in the intelligence community know climate change is happening. Our military leaders -- generals and admirals, active duty and retired -- know it’s happening. Our homeland security professionals know it is happening. And our Coast Guard knows it’s happening.

The science is indisputable. The fossil fuels we burn release carbon dioxide, which traps heat. And the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been in 800,000 years. The planet is getting warmer. Fourteen of the 15 hottest years on record have been in the past 15 years. Last year was the planet’s warmest year ever recorded.

Our scientists at NASA just reported that some of the sea ice around Antarctica is breaking up even faster than expected. The world’s glaciers are melting, pouring new water into the ocean. Over the past century, the world sea level rose by about eight inches. That was in the last century; by the end of this century, it’s projected to rise another one to four feet.

Cadets, the threat of a changing climate cuts to the very core of your service. You’ve been drawn to water -— like the poet who wrote, “the heart of the great ocean sends a thrilling pulse through me.” You know the beauty of the sea, but you also know its unforgiving power.

Here at the Academy, climate change -- understanding the science and the consequences -- is part of the curriculum, and rightly so, because it will affect everything that you do in your careers. Some of you have already served in Alaska and aboard icebreakers, and you know the effects. As America’s Maritime Guardian, you’ve pledged to remain always ready -- Semper Paratus -- ready for all threats. And climate change is one of those most severe threats.

And this is not just a problem for countries on the coasts, or for certain regions of the world. Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I’m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act -- and we need to act now.

After all, isn’t that the true hallmark of leadership? When you’re on deck, standing your watch, you stay vigilant. You plan for every contingency. And if you see storm clouds gathering, or dangerous shoals ahead, you don't sit back and do nothing. You take action -- to protect your ship, to keep your crew safe. Anything less is negligence. It is a dereliction of duty. And so, too, with climate change. Denying it, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces.



It’s been said of life on the sea -- “the pessimist complains about the wind, the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” Cadets, like you, I reject pessimism. We know what we as Americans can achieve when we set ourselves to great endeavors. We are, by nature, optimists -- but we’re not blind optimists. We know that wishful thinking in the face of all evidence to the contrary would set us on a course for disaster. If we are to meet this threat of climate change, we must be realists. We have to readjust the sails.

That’s why confronting climate change is now a key pillar of American global leadership. When I meet with leaders around the world, it’s often at the top of our agenda -- a core element of our diplomacy. And you are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us. It will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, their capabilities, today and for the long term. So let me be specific on how your generation will have to lead the way to both prepare ourselves and how to prevent the worst effects in the future.

Around the world, climate change increases the risk of instability and conflict. Rising seas are already swallowing low-lying lands, from Bangladesh to Pacific islands, forcing people from their homes. Caribbean islands and Central American coasts are vulnerable, as well. Globally, we could see a rise in climate change refugees. And I guarantee you the Coast Guard will have to respond. Elsewhere, more intense droughts will exacerbate shortages of water and food, increase competition for resources, and create the potential for mass migrations and new tensions. All of which is why the Pentagon calls climate change a “threat multiplier.”

Understand, climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world. Yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram. It’s now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East. So, increasingly, our military and our combatant commands, our services -- including the Coast Guard -- will need to factor climate change into plans and operations, because you need to be ready.

Around the world, climate change will mean more extreme storms. No single weather event can be blamed solely on climate change. But Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines gave us a possible glimpse of things to come -- one of the worst cyclones ever recorded; thousands killed, many more displaced, billions of dollars in damage, and a massive international relief effort that included the United States military and its Coast Guard. So more extreme storms will mean more humanitarian missions to deliver lifesaving help. Our forces will have to be ready.

As Admiral Zukunft already mentioned, climate change means Arctic sea ice is vanishing faster than ever. By the middle of this century, Arctic summers could be essentially ice free. We’re witnessing the birth of a new ocean -- new sea lanes, more shipping, more exploration, more competition for the vast natural resources below.

In Alaska, we have more than 1,000 miles of Arctic coastline. The United States is an Arctic nation, and we have a great interest in making sure that the region is peaceful, that its indigenous people and environment are protected, and that its resources are managed responsibly in partnership with other nations. And that means all of you are going to have to step up -- because few know the Arctic better than the U.S. Coast Guard. You’ve operated there across nearly 150 years. And as the Arctic opens, the role that the Coast Guard plays will only grow. I believe that our interests in the Arctic demand that we continue to invest in an enduring Coast Guard icebreaking capacity.

I was proud to nominate your last commandant, Admiral Papp, as our special representative for the Arctic. And as the U.S. chairs the Arctic Council this year, I’m committed to advancing our interests in this critical region because we have to be ready in the Arctic, as well.

Climate change, and especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people. Already, today, in Miami and Charleston, streets now flood at high tide. Along our coasts, thousands of miles of highways and roads, railways, energy facilities are all vulnerable. It’s estimated that a further increase in sea level of just one foot by the end of this century could cost our nation $200 billion.

In New York Harbor, the sea level is already a foot higher than a century ago -- which was one of the reasons Superstorm Sandy put so much of lower Manhattan underwater. During Sandy, the Coast Guard mounted a heroic response, along with our National Guard and Reserve. But rising seas and stronger storms will mean more disaster response missions. And we need the Coast Guard to be ready, because you are America’s maritime first responder.

Climate change poses a threat to the readiness of our forces. Many of our military installations are on the coast, including, of course, our Coast Guard stations. Around Norfolk, high tides and storms increasingly flood parts of our Navy base and an airbase. In Alaska, thawing permafrost is damaging military facilities. Out West, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could threaten training areas our troops depend on.

So politicians who say they care about military readiness ought to care about this, as well. Just as we’re helping American communities prepare to deal with the impacts of climate change, we have to help our bases and ports, as well. Not just with stronger seawalls and natural barriers, but with smarter, more resilient infrastructure -- because when the seas rise and storms come, we all have to be ready.

Now, everything I’ve discussed with you so far is about preparing for the impacts of climate change. But we need to be honest -- such preparation and adaptation alone will not be enough. As men and women in uniform, you know that it can be just as important, if not more important, to prevent threats before they can cause catastrophic harm. And only way -- the only way -- the world is going to prevent the worst effects of climate change is to slow down the warming of the planet.

Some warming is now inevitable. But there comes a point when the worst effects will be irreversible. And time is running out. And we all know what needs to happen. It’s no secret. The world has to finally start reducing its carbon emissions -- now. And that's why I’ve committed the United States to leading the world on this challenge.

Over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever to reduce harmful emissions, unprecedented investments to cut energy waste in our homes and building, standards to double the fuel efficiency of our vehicles. We're using more clean energy than ever before -- more solar, more wind. It’s all helped us reduce our carbon emissions more than any other advanced nation. And today, we can be proud that our carbon pollution is near its lowest levels in almost two decades. But we’ve got to do more.

So, going forward, I’ve committed to doubling the pace at which we cut carbon pollution. And that means we all have to step up. And it will not be easy. It will require sacrifice, and the politics will be tough. But there is no other way. We have to make our homes and buildings more efficient. We have to invest in more energy research and renewable technologies. We have to move ahead with standards to cut the amount of carbon pollution in our power plants. And working with other nations, we have to achieve a strong global agreement this year to start reducing the total global emission -- because every nation must do its part. Every nation.

So this will be tough. But as so often is the case, our men and women in uniform show us the way. They're used to sacrifice and they are used to doing hard stuff. Class of 2015, you’ve built new equipment that uses less energy. You’ve designed new vessels with fewer harmful emissions. Stephen Horvath, selected as a Fulbright Scholar, will research new technologies for renewable energies. The Coast Guard is building more fuel-efficient cutters. So you're already leading. And, Cadets, as you go forward, I challenge you to keep imagining and building the new future we need -- and make your class motto your life’s work: “To go where few dare.” This is a place where we need you.

Across our military, our bases and ports are using more solar and wind, which helps save money that we can use to improve readiness. The Army is pursuing new, lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The Air Force F-22 broke the sound barrier using biofuels. And the Navy runs an entire carrier strike group -- the Green Fleet -- with biofuels. Our Marines have deployed to Afghanistan with portable solar panels, lightening their load and reducing dangerous resupply missions. So fighting climate change and using energy wisely also makes our forces more nimble and more ready. And that’s something that should unite us as Americans. This cannot be subject to the usual politics and the usual rhetoric. When storms gather, we get ready.


Besides the fact that this dude doesn't haven't a CLUE what a Coast Guard mission should be, or a grasp on what audience he's speaking with --- The ELEVATED IMPORTANCE of this POLITICAL GOAL is blatantly apparent in the emphasis that he gave it..

 

[mamooth]

Google "AGW The Pause" see what comes up.

A lot of denier bullshit. That's kind of the point. The real science shows steady warming.

There's a reason they stopped calling it "Global Warming" and went to "Climate Change" instead. You're not honest or independent

The conservative Bush admin changed it, because they thought "global warming" sounded too scary. Do learn the history, eh?

And that's always how you want to approach these arguments.. The debate is over... the science is settled... sit down and shut up you idiot denier! That's the crux of your argument on this

So you've noticed you're getting treated like a flat earther. There's a reason for that. And it's not because the round-earthers are squashing dissent.

The most common GHG is water vapor. CO2 is a GHG which creates an amplification of warming caused by the greenhouse effect. When you are spewing jargon like "Increases in backradiation, decreases in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, stratospheric cooling." you are explaining the science behind CO2 as an amplifier. I haven't disputed that. Apparently, you're not even familiar with the science you are presenting

You're still not making any sense.

What caused the original greenhouse effect? And what was the cause of that cause? You can't just wave your hands around wildly and scream about mysterious "natural causes!". Even natural causes can be named. So name them.

After that, tell us exactly how the CO2 "amplified" that original greenhouse warming. That is, why did the CO2 increase?

Let's go over how science works. The theory that best explains the observed data is the accepted theory. Global warming theory explains all of the observed data. Your theory explains nothing, and nobody is quite sure what your theory even is, being you can't explain it coherently.

You've failed to prove anything. Humans burning fossil fuels is one source of CO2 but there are many sources and there are also many sources of processing CO2 in nature.

Nature doesn't suddenly burp insanely massive amounts of undetectable CO2. If that much CO2 was exploding into the atmosphere from a natural source, we'd be able to see that source.

And again, the isotope ratios prove the CO2 came from burning fossil fuels. That issue is settled. Denying it is like denying the round earth.

You're left with nothing but resorting to personal attacks.

You came in here, tossed out fantasy crap, didn't back it up in any way, and now you're having a tantrum because it's getting laughed at. Tough luck, snowflake. If you want to sit with the grownups, you'll have to do better than your usual "because I say so!".

 

[flacaltenn]

Why do you think such problems, which have been dealt with for many years, are suddenly being ignored? Did someone rescind the EPA regulations?

Please use the reply so that folks can tell when their posts get a response. Are you scared that folks MIGHT respond.

I answered your question. NOTHING in the enviro list of priorities was more important than CC/GW . Thousands of enviro "problems and issues" were ATTRIBUTED to CC/GW without FULL discussion of other possible causes. And if it COULDN'T be related to CC/GW -- no one gave a shit.

Do you know HOW I know this Crick/Abraham? I saw you protest and report threads and posts that YOU didn't believe should be in the Enviro forum. Because according to YOUR yardstick --- If it wasn't GW/CC it just wasn't Environment in your mind. . Hypocrite..

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah. Much less than the security required for a chemical plant, refinery or major gas pipeline station..

Remind us, can those make a portion of the planet uninhabitable for decades (at a minimum) if breached?

And are people proposing to put on on every block, in inhabited areas, like there are with the mini-nukes?

You seen pictures of Nagasaki and Hiroshima lately?

 

[flacaltenn]

Why do you think such problems, which have been dealt with for many years, are suddenly being ignored? Did someone rescind the EPA regulations?

Ask the Prez why he did not tasked all branches of the Armed Forces to address the plight of the honeybees. Seems like it just wasn't high on his "to-do" list. Now if you could blame GW/CC/theapocalypse for the plight of the honey bees and make it STICK scientifically without giving folks hernias from ROFLing, ---- all that would be fixed by now.. AND those "kill permits" for eagles and raptors at your wind farms would have been pulled by now.....

 

[Boss]

Google "AGW The Pause" see what comes up.

A lot of denier bullshit. That's kind of the point. The real science shows steady warming.

There's a reason they stopped calling it "Global Warming" and went to "Climate Change" instead. You're not honest or independent

The conservative Bush admin changed it, because they thought "global warming" sounded too scary. Do learn the history, eh?

And that's always how you want to approach these arguments.. The debate is over... the science is settled... sit down and shut up you idiot denier! That's the crux of your argument on this

So you've noticed you're getting treated like a flat earther. There's a reason for that. And it's not because the round-earthers are squashing dissent.

The most common GHG is water vapor. CO2 is a GHG which creates an amplification of warming caused by the greenhouse effect. When you are spewing jargon like "Increases in backradiation, decreases in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, stratospheric cooling." you are explaining the science behind CO2 as an amplifier. I haven't disputed that. Apparently, you're not even familiar with the science you are presenting

You're still not making any sense.

What caused the original greenhouse effect? And what was the cause of that cause? You can't just wave your hands around wildly and scream about mysterious "natural causes!". Even natural causes can be named. So name them.

After that, tell us exactly how the CO2 "amplified" that original greenhouse warming. That is, why did the CO2 increase?

Let's go over how science works. The theory that best explains the observed data is the accepted theory. Global warming theory explains all of the observed data. Your theory explains nothing, and nobody is quite sure what your theory even is, being you can't explain it coherently.

You've failed to prove anything. Humans burning fossil fuels is one source of CO2 but there are many sources and there are also many sources of processing CO2 in nature.

Nature doesn't suddenly burp insanely massive amounts of undetectable CO2. If that much CO2 was exploding into the atmosphere from a natural source, we'd be able to see that source.

And again, the isotope ratios prove the CO2 came from burning fossil fuels. That issue is settled. Denying it is like denying the round earth.

You're left with nothing but resorting to personal attacks.

You came in here, tossed out fantasy crap, didn't back it up in any way, and now you're having a tantrum because it's getting laughed at. Tough luck, snowflake. If you want to sit with the grownups, you'll have to do better than your usual "because I say so!".

LMAO.... You just spit out all that garbage and didn't make a single scientific point. In fact, you start sounding quite unhinged from reality here. So there has not been a 17-year pause in warming, that's made up data by your detractors... Volcanoes and thermal vents in the ocean don't produce large volumes of CO2... and Bush made you change the name of your movement?

Yeahh... I think we're done here.

 

[Crick]

Volcanoes produce large volumes of CO2, but only a small fraction of the CO2 produced by humans. That's a well established fact and if you think otherwise you're just going to make yourself look ignorant and foolish. Look up the numbers.

Thermal vents do not actually produce large quantities of CO2. They predominantly produce solutions of metal sulfides.

Bush forced his science agencies to downplay global warming and forced all published agency documents to substitute "climate change" for "global warming". Personally, if I want to say "climate change", I say "climate change" and if I want to say "global warming", I say "global warming". And if this is all you've got for an argument.... there's not much happening here is there.

 

[Old Rocks]

And for anyone who tells you wind is cheaper than a new MSR reactor let's do a little math

Your average 2 MW turbine costs 4.4 million installed and it produces on average .5 KW of power so to actually get 2 MW of power you need to install 4 2MW turbines at a cost of 17.6 million

to get 500 MW of power you have to install 1000 2 MW turbines at a cost of
4.4 billion

now it has been estimated that one 500MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion and even if it costs another 500 million to install it it is still cheaper than wind

and let's not forget that the life of a wind turbine is about 20 years with some pretty hefty maintenance costs

and MSR can be fueled once and run for up to 30 years

Nice. All on paper. None existing and generating right now. In the meantime, the price of wind and solar continue to decline, and utilities continue to buy and install more and more of each. Sell you vaporware to some other sucker.

 

[Boss]

Volcanoes produce large volumes of CO2, but only a small fraction of the CO2 produced by humans. That's a well established fact and if you think otherwise you're just going to make yourself look ignorant and foolish. Look up the numbers.

Thermal vents do not actually produce large quantities of CO2. They predominantly produce solutions of metal sulfides.

Bush forced his science agencies to downplay global warming and forced all published agency documents to substitute "climate change" for "global warming". Personally, if I want to say "climate change", I say "climate change" and if I want to say "global warming", I say "global warming". And if this is all you've got for an argument.... there's not much happening here is there.

There's not much I can say to a brainwashed idiot... you're right.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why do you oppose cutting co2 emissions?

Why you should support cutting emissions
1. It is a green house that will change our climate in bad ways.
2. It is poisonous at high levels.

Because I want it to be warmer......

Love how the left tells us why we should think their way.

Blimey, you are a moron.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We HAD emission controls in the US. Trump is getting rid of many of them today. What a nice guy. He's really looking out for you and your family, isn't he?

Can anyone show us employment numbers that indicate US pollution controls were hurting jobs?

Go Trump.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And for anyone who tells you wind is cheaper than a new MSR reactor let's do a little math

Your average 2 MW turbine costs 4.4 million installed and it produces on average .5 KW of power so to actually get 2 MW of power you need to install 4 2MW turbines at a cost of 17.6 million

to get 500 MW of power you have to install 1000 2 MW turbines at a cost of
4.4 billion

now it has been estimated that one 500MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion and even if it costs another 500 million to install it it is still cheaper than wind

and let's not forget that the life of a wind turbine is about 20 years with some pretty hefty maintenance costs

and MSR can be fueled once and run for up to 30 years

Nice. All on paper. None existing and generating right now. In the meantime, the price of wind and solar continue to decline, and utilities continue to buy and install more and more of each. Sell you vaporware to some other sucker.

like I said it's not vapor ware if it has already been built and proven

MSRs have been built and proven to be self limiting and cheaper and safer than light water reactors

 

[Old Rocks]

Or your apparent lack of knowledge in how the GW media circus has virtually BLACKED-OUT real discussions of 100s of other important enviro issues.

Nah, I actually know things, you are merely hyperventilating about figments of your imagination:

So, if you look closely you find the most influential broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox, devoting 50 hours of broadcast on climate change, all of them combined, in all of 2016. 50 hours, and that's "BLACKED-OUT" all the other oh-so-valid environmental concerns, according to flacaltenn.

How about posting up how much time they devoted to the OTHER pollution issues. All you have done with this graph is reinforce what flac stated. Or are you not smart enough to figure that one out?

Now Mr. Westwall, seeing as how you support the orange clown making our water and air filthy, why pretend any longer that you actually give a shit about the environment. We can clearly see that you do not.

 

[Old Rocks]

And for anyone who tells you wind is cheaper than a new MSR reactor let's do a little math

Your average 2 MW turbine costs 4.4 million installed and it produces on average .5 KW of power so to actually get 2 MW of power you need to install 4 2MW turbines at a cost of 17.6 million

to get 500 MW of power you have to install 1000 2 MW turbines at a cost of
4.4 billion

now it has been estimated that one 500MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion and even if it costs another 500 million to install it it is still cheaper than wind

and let's not forget that the life of a wind turbine is about 20 years with some pretty hefty maintenance costs

and MSR can be fueled once and run for up to 30 years

Nice. All on paper. None existing and generating right now. In the meantime, the price of wind and solar continue to decline, and utilities continue to buy and install more and more of each. Sell you vaporware to some other sucker.

like I said it's not vapor ware if it has already been built and proven

MSRs have been built and proven to be self limiting and cheaper and safer than light water reactors

Links? Companies names?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And for anyone who tells you wind is cheaper than a new MSR reactor let's do a little math

Your average 2 MW turbine costs 4.4 million installed and it produces on average .5 KW of power so to actually get 2 MW of power you need to install 4 2MW turbines at a cost of 17.6 million

to get 500 MW of power you have to install 1000 2 MW turbines at a cost of
4.4 billion

now it has been estimated that one 500MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion and even if it costs another 500 million to install it it is still cheaper than wind

and let's not forget that the life of a wind turbine is about 20 years with some pretty hefty maintenance costs

and MSR can be fueled once and run for up to 30 years

Nice. All on paper. None existing and generating right now. In the meantime, the price of wind and solar continue to decline, and utilities continue to buy and install more and more of each. Sell you vaporware to some other sucker.

like I said it's not vapor ware if it has already been built and proven

MSRs have been built and proven to be self limiting and cheaper and safer than light water reactors

Links? Companies names?

you know there were programs that built both integral fast reactors and molten salt reactors and in fact the US is giving money to other countries to build them

The U.S. is helping China build a novel, superior nuclear reactor