Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
One billionaire's jaunt to space emits as much greenhouse gasses as the poorest billion people do for an entire year.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Fuck Pakistan.

---

The USA dumped every year about 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since you were born, 6ix. It is the USA that is fucking Pakistan by dumping its waste into Pakistan's air. But the Republicans in Congress want to continue the free dumping of CO2 forever and never pay for removal from the atmosphere. The total CO2, measured in hundreds of billions of metric tonnes, is flooding Pakistan.

---

China's closer. So is India.

China and India make our CO2 emissions look like a single cow fart by comparison.

Your understanding of how all the shit you buy that you don't need and the impact it has on the environment is as simple minded and incorrect as your understanding about how bad your coal burning cars are for the environment. That's because you're not sitting in a constant cloud of smog where things are actually made and you believe that electricity is magic.

Get fucked worm.

---

Shifting blame does not make sense, 6ix.

---

It's not shifting the blame. It's stating a fact. I'm not blaming China OR India. [SEE BELOW]

Quote:

---

The research by Rhodium Group says China emitted 27% of the world's greenhouse gases in 2019. The US was the second-largest emitter at 11% while India was third with 6.6% of emissions, the think tank said.

---

Big fucking deal. What REALLY matters here is how much of the combined world pollution is put into products and services that the destination country uses.

America tops that fucking list any way you fudge the numbers.

All of you cunts virtue tweeting about the environment from that shiny new "smart" phone you buy every year or two can go right on and get fucked. YOU are the problem.


But you don't even recognize that you are the problem because the air you breathe isn't so thick with pollution you can cut through it with a knife. You reap the benefits of all the overpriced disposable shit made on the cheap half a world away that you buy every day and don't need, and all you see is the shiny clean box it comes in without putting any thought into how much damage was done to the environment to make that and bring it to you. Nor do you give any fucking thought to how that magic electricity comes cleanly out of your wall outlets.

The same can be said about the coal burning cars that California is demonstrating for the world right now how they will NEVER work out unless massive infrastructure improvements including hundreds or maybe even thousands of nuclear plants will have to be constructed before they ever actually become adopted en masse.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Fuck Pakistan.

---

The USA dumped every year about 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since you were born, 6ix. It is the USA that is fucking Pakistan by dumping its waste into Pakistan's air. But the Republicans in Congress want to continue the free dumping of CO2 forever and never pay for removal from the atmosphere. The total CO2, measured in hundreds of billions of metric tonnes, is flooding Pakistan.

---

China's closer. So is India.

China and India make our CO2 emissions look like a single cow fart by comparison.

Your understanding of how all the shit you buy that you don't need and the impact it has on the environment is as simple minded and incorrect as your understanding about how bad your coal burning cars are for the environment. That's because you're not sitting in a constant cloud of smog where things are actually made and you believe that electricity is magic.

Get fucked worm.

---

Shifting blame does not make sense, 6ix.

---

It's not shifting the blame. It's stating a fact. I'm not blaming China OR India. [SEE BELOW]

Quote:

---

The research by Rhodium Group says China emitted 27% of the world's greenhouse gases in 2019. The US was the second-largest emitter at 11% while India was third with 6.6% of emissions, the think tank said.

---

Big fucking deal. What REALLY matters here is how much of the combined world pollution is put into products and services that the destination country uses.

America tops that fucking list any way you fudge the numbers.

All of you cunts virtue tweeting about the environment from that shiny new "smart" phone you buy every year or two can go right on and get fucked. YOU are the problem.


But you don't even recognize that you are the problem because the air you breathe isn't so thick with pollution you can cut through it with a knife. You reap the benefits of all the overpriced disposable shit made on the cheap half a world away that you buy every day and don't need, and all you see is the shiny clean box it comes in without putting any thought into how much damage was done to the environment to make that and bring it to you. Nor do you give any fucking thought to how that magic electricity comes cleanly out of your wall outlets.

The same can be said about the coal burning cars that California is demonstrating for the world right now how they will NEVER work out unless massive infrastructure improvements including hundreds or maybe even thousands of nuclear plants will have to be constructed before they ever actually become adopted en masse.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

---

If you were an engineer, you could see, with a little imagination, that CO2 is a waste stream. What do engineers do with waste streams, as an engineer? Do you close the factory because it produces waste? No. No. No. Do you tell people to live without the factory's products because the factory produces waste? No. No. No. Here is what should happen:

Once upon a time, factories along the Houston Ship Channel dumped their waste streams directly into the Ship Channel. That only stopped when the Federal government declared that it has control over pollution in all navigable waters of the United States, which includes the Ship Channel. After the factories sued the Federal government and the cases went to the Supreme Court, the factories were forced to stop dumping their waste streams into the Houston Ship Channel. By the way, the factories magically found ways to properly handle their wastes, once they were forced to spend the money. The same will happen with CO2 waste streams, but only after the Federal government forces factories to search for the magic to handle CO2.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
One billionaire's jaunt to space emits as much greenhouse gasses as the poorest billion people do for an entire year.

---

Bezos, right? Unusually, for the actual rocket launch, the CO2 isn’t really the biggest deal here. It’s possible to use rocket fuel without any carbon in it at all – NASA has been using liquid hydrogen for decades, and Jeff Bezos’ rocket used it too.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/astrophysics/greenhouse-gas-space-x/

Rocket Engines Designed for Reuse
https://www.blueorigin.com/engines/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

If I add it up correctly, that's four billion-years of greenhouse gas emissions right there.


You're just troll, SECOND.
And a know nothing.
Anyone who takes your posts seriously is stupider than you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

No shit.

That was the easy fix.

Ship all those plants and jobs overseas where they don't give a single shit about emissions. Bonus when you get 12 year olds to make your Nike's and iPhones for a quarter a day too.


You are the problem. And you know this. That's why you always feel guilty about everything.

But all the virtue signalling in the world isn't ever going to alleviate any of that guilt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

No shit.

That was the easy fix.

Ship all those plants and jobs overseas where they don't give a single shit about emissions. Bonus when you get 12 year olds to make your Nike's and iPhones for a quarter a day too.


You are the problem. And you know this. That's why you always feel guilty about everything.

But all the virtue signalling in the world isn't ever going to alleviate any of that guilt.

---

Are you under the impression that the factories along the Houston Ship Channel were closed in Texas and reopened in China, rather than clean up their waste streams being dumped into the Ship Channel? The Texas factories did NOT close. All the refineries and petrochemical plants stayed in Texas and have increased production and profitability. Their owners had complained that the factories would go bankrupt because the Federal government's rules on dumping pollution into the Ship Channel. I've been waiting 30 years for the first bankruptcy, but none happened.

I think the factory owners were lying to the public, to Congress, and to the Supreme Court just because the owners didn't want to spend the money to clean their waste streams dumped into the Ship Channel. Time passes and today the same factory owners are lying about CO2 because they, once again, don't want to spend the money to clean their CO2 waste streams dumped into the atmosphere.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

If I add it up correctly, that's four billion-years of greenhouse gas emissions right there.


You're just troll, SECOND.
And a know nothing.
Anyone who takes your posts seriously is stupider than you are.

---

Signym, you are overestimating rocket flights and underestimating airplane flights.

One rocket launch produces 200-300 tonnes of carbon dioxide, if kerosine fueled rather than hydrogen. In the whole of 2020, for instance, there were 114 attempted orbital launches in the world, burning all kinds of fuels, according to Nasa.

For one long-haul plane flight it’s one to three tons of carbon dioxide per passenger. There is only one kind of fuel for those jets, unlike for rockets. With 200 passengers, that is more CO2 than a rocket flight. The airline industry has more than 100,000 flights each day on average.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/19/billionaires-space-tou
rism-environment-emissions

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

So, let's see... WHO, exactly, are flying their private jets all over creation?

Who even flies commercially? The homeless? The barrista/Walmart greeter? The Chinese factory worker, the farmer in South Asia/ Africa/ S America?

And speaking of jets... What about all those FIGHTER JETS? Yanno, the ones blasting off from carriers to the tune of tens of thousands of gallons each time?

Lotta waste by the wealthy and the military, SECOND.

---

Quote:

---

Getting it right also meant keeping the costs below $100 for each ton of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. The design and engineering cost of the pilot project that’s been running since 2015 in Squamish, British Columbia, was published today in the peer-reviewed energy journal Joule. The company used existing industrial processes to scale up and reduce costs.

“Our paper shows the costs and engineering for a full-scale plant that could capture one million tons of CO2 a year,” Keith said.

Until now, the costs of CO2 removal, or what’s known as “direct air capture,” were believed to be at least $600 per ton.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

So, let's see... WHO, exactly, are flying their private jets all over creation?

Who even flies commercially? The homeless? The barrista/Walmart greeter? The Chinese factory worker, the farmer in South Asia/ Africa/ S America?

And speaking of jets... What about all those FIGHTER JETS? Yanno, the ones blasting off from carriers to the tune of tens of thousands of gallons each time?

Lotta waste by the wealthy and the military, SECOND.

---

Signym, your point is hovering around not making a CO2 waste stream, a very straightforward way to decrease CO2. Did you know that every person emits two tons of carbon dioxide a year through eating? Stop eating and straightforward stop a CO2 waste stream.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.htm

---

Oh for fuck's sake, SECOND.

It's not like I haven't posted at least a half-dozen times about increasing carbon absorption with regenerative farming, better forest management, and other environmental practices.

By paying farmers to increase the carbon content of their soil they would gain anither source of income and improve yields without stripping the soil.

It doesn't need whoopiedoopie "technology" (which you are probably hoping to make $ with) to improve our carbon footprint.

About a dozen years ago, I did a global calculation on how much energy was being produced, and what the per capita energy consumption was. USA and Canada were twice per Capita of Europe as a whole. Nobody would have claimed then that Europe had a low standard of living. We could reduce our energy consumption in half w/o reducing our living standards (it would take reducing our huge wealth gap). That "saved" energy, if applied to the impoverished of the world, could bring up their living standards to approximately Costa Rica or Cuba (again, assuming there are no ultra wealthy oligarchs soaking up all of that energy for personal use). With improved living standards and education for women comes a drop in population growth.

Si se puede.
PS: I'm pointing out that you're just a troll and a liar, and anyone who takes your posts seriously is stupider than you are.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Oh for fuck's sake, SECOND.

It's not like I haven't posted at least a half-dozen times about increasing carbon absorption with regenerative farming, better forest management, and other environmental practices.

By paying farmers to increase the carbon content of their soil they would gain anither source of income and improve yields without stripping the soil.

It doesn't need whoopiedoopie "technology" (which you are probably hoping to make $ with) to improve our carbon footprint.

---

Quote:

---

Of riginally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Oh for fuck's sake, SECOND.

It's not like I haven't posted at least a half-dozen times about increasing carbon absorption with regenerative farming, better forest management, and other environmental practices.

By paying farmers to increase the carbon content of their soil they would gain anither source of income and improve yields without stripping the soil.

It doesn't need whoopiedoopie "technology" (which you are probably hoping to make $ with) to improve our carbon footprint.

---

What's stopping the gardeners of the world from solving the CO2 problem?

---

Quote:

---

Or you can leave it to scientists to turn it into ten thousand goddamn research projects

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Money.

---

How much would it cost to stop global warming?
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+would+it+cost+to+stop+global+
warming

The biggest number I can find is $131 Trillion. The longer humanity waits to get started, the higher this number will get. Many people are assuming they can avoid paying the price by waiting to start the work until after they are dead.

The Cost to Reduce Global Warming? $131 Trillion Is One Answer | WSJ
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-cost-to-reduce-global
-warming-131-trillion-is-one-answer-wsj/

The World's GDP is $103.86 trillion as of 2022
https://www.populationu.com/gen/countries-by-gdp

Humans being human, they do not want to pay to save the world.
Let somebody else pay. Let somebody else do the work while humanity watches and congratulates itself for being wise enough to do nothing but reap all the benefits for free.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

So why do you support our government spending money (possibly unwisely) on climate change technologies, other than that you hope to get some of that government green?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

So why do you support our government spending money (possibly unwisely) on climate change technologies, other than that you hope to get some of that government green?

---

Trumptards don't want to pay because they realize they can get the ALL the benefits of halting climate change if everyone but themselves pay. But if the US government pays to halt climate change, the Trumptards will get billed for what they expected would be absolutely free as the air and sunshine are free. This greatly upsets Trumptards. What also upsets Trumptards is the idea that China is not halting climate change. Once again, the Trumptards are expecting somebody else to pay all costs, in this case China, rather than they pay any of the cost.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Nice way to avoid the question, SECOND.
BUT I'm not a Trumptard.
What is YOUR dog in this?
Genuinely concerned?
Money making oppty to assuage a guilty conscience?
Just something to virtue signal/troll about?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Nice way to avoid the question, SECOND.
BUT I'm not a Trumptard.
What is YOUR dog in this?
Genuinely concerned?
Money making oppty to assuage a guilty conscience?
Just something to virtue signal/troll about?

---

I am not guilty. I'm not trolling you. I am telling you the truth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You've been caught in so many self-contadictions its clear that EVEN YOU don't believe what you post. And if YOU don't believe what you post, why should I?
Keep trolling.
It's what you do best.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
You are out of your depth, Signym.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Just more of SECOND'S trolling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Texas electric grid recommendations are just more crony capitalism costing consumers

Chris Tomlinson, Staff writer
Sep. 7, 2022

The new recommendations for a State Energy Plan are exactly what you’d expect from fossil fuel and traditional energy executives, appointed by politicians backed by fossil fuel executives who only heard invited testimonies from people with fossil fuel sympathies.

Texas should burn more natural gas with traditional, polluting power plants and guarantee incumbent corporations plenty of profit for decades to come, a handpicked committee recommended. Panelists never mention climate change or global warming, demonstrating a complete disregard for the welfare of future generations.

The committee instead promulgates an absolute lie: “The more that power systems rely on wind, solar, and battery storage systems, the greater the risk that a major grid disturbance will cause the grid to cascade into a blackout condition.”

Real world experiences and dozens of studies have proven the opposite. The recommendations show that crony capitalism is thriving in Texas, and an electric grid once considered the most innovative in the world is regressing to benefit the shareholders of a few companies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, like last summer in Germany where the sun didn't shine AND the wind didn't blow? Like that?

Solar power obviously unavailable at night. Solar power and wind power unreliable. Energy storage capacity currently unable to store enough to smooth out the supply when green energy fails (unless they use excess electricity to hydrolyze water to hydrogen and oxygen).

Solar power, wind power, and hydro are useful adjuncts to traditional power and can be used to reduce CO2 emissions.

---

Quote:

---

Under the Shell Energy brand, we provide innovative, reliable and cleaner energy solutions through a portfolio of gas, power, environmental products and energy efficiency offers to businesses and residential customers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Under the Shell Energy brand, we provide innovative, reliable and cleaner energy solutions through a portfolio of gas, power, environmental products and energy efficiency offers to businesses and residential customers.

---

https://www.shell.com/shellenergy/about.html

Yanno, Musk never made money from the customers of Solar City. Where Solar City REALLY raked in the $ was the $3000 government subsidy for each install. The company in essence owned the panels, pocketed the subsidy, and got the homeowners to pay THEM for the electricty generated.

I dunno about Shell Energy. I know that 100% renewable is NOT their only business. Maybe there's a subsidy or a tax writeoff that lets them at least break even while the other parts of their business are doing well. Whatever it is, they're not making money from their customers by not charging them for electricity, and it's certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
More people now work in clean energy than in fossil fuels

Nearly 40 million people worldwide work in jobs related to clean energy, according to a Sept. 8 report from the International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-employment/overview#abstract

That number represents 56% of total energy sector employment, meaning that, for the first time ever, clean energy jobs outnumber those involved in producing, transporting, and burning fossil fuels.

---

Quote:

---

In 2021, renewable energy sources accounted for about 12.2% of total U.S. energy consumption and about 20.1% of electricity generation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm sorry but... do you have a point, SECOND? First you post that Shell Energy is giving away free electricity. Then you post they're charging beaucoups bucks for it.

So... what's your point, exactly?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
More people now work in clean energy than in fossil fuels

Nearly 40 million people worldwide work in jobs related to clean energy, according to a Sept. 8 report from the International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-employment/overview#abstract

That number represents 56% of total energy sector employment, meaning that, for the first time ever, clean energy jobs outnumber those involved in producing, transporting, and burning fossil fuels.

---

Quote:

---

In 2021, renewable energy sources accounted for about 12.2% of total U.S. energy consumption and about 20.1% of electricity generation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Get fucked Leftists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Get fucked Leftists.

---

You didn't have to repeat yourself. . . There is a huge gap in your understanding that is tedious for me to try changing. The fossil fuel industry does NOT require many workers in order to serve 100% of Americans while the green energy industry requires an enormous number of workers to serve a few Americans. The closest analogy is the number of farmers in 1860 compared to farming in 2022. 50% of Americans were farmers long ago and now it is 1%. With the addition of some labor-saving technology, a lot of farmers became unemployed as farmers. The same thing will happen when green energy gets more labor-saving technology. The number of employees will decrease sharply and they will have to go back to work at low paying jobs with McDonald's and Burger King.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

How the fuck are you going to power 30 million of these things in one state alone?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Get fucked Leftists.

---

You didn't have to repeat yourself. . . There is a huge gap in your understanding that is tedious for me to try changing. The fossil fuel industry does NOT require many workers in order to serve 100% of Americans while the green energy industry requires an enormous number of workers to serve a few Americans. The closest analogy is the number of farmers in 1860 compared to farming in 2022. 50% of Americans were farmers long ago and now it is 1%. With the addition of some labor-saving technology, a lot of farmers became unemployed as farmers. The same thing will happen when green energy gets more labor-saving technology. The number of employees will decrease sharply and they will have to go back to work at low paying jobs with McDonald's and Burger King.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Labor-saving technology?

How about you get some technology that actually works and still isn't in the stage of plausible but still science fiction?


California had to tell the few people who had coal burning cars not to charge them during the day and everybody else to keep their A/C at 78 degrees just a few weeks ago.

Forget labor-saving technology. Hell... forget that your "clean" energy from the manufacturing of the batteries to the electric that charges them are dirtier than fossil fuels.

How the fuck are you going to power 30 million of these things in one state alone?

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Anyway, there are NO coal fired plants in CA!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

THERE ARE NO MAGIC SOLUTIONS! IT'S NOT LIKE WINDPOWER! OR SOLAR! IS GOING TO SAVE US ALL

---

Quote:

---

Solar Panels Near Break-Even Point
A new study examines the question of when photovoltaic modules settle their 'carbon debt' and become clean energy producers

It takes a lot of energy to produce a solar panel. Much of the electricity used to melt the silicon used in PV modules comes from generating plants that burn fossil fuels — and that has skeptics doubting solar panels are a plus for the environment

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND you have got to stop looking at things in terms of money. Just bc we've gotten more cost-efficient at something doesn't mean it saves energy/CO2. Stop being a money-grubber, start being an engineer, and keep your eye on the actual problem you're trying to solve instead of some conflated factor.

A MERE FIVE YEARS AGO...

Quote:

---

Solar Panels Near Break-Even Point
A new study examines the question of when photovoltaic modules settle their 'carbon debt' and become clean energy producers

It takes a lot of energy to produce a solar panel. Much of the electricity used to melt the silicon used in PV modules comes from generating plants that burn fossil fuels — and that has skeptics doubting solar panels are a plus for the environment

---

https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/solar-panels-near-break-e
ven-point. When we installed solar panels I assumed that they were at, or past, the CO2 breakeven point. OTOH, solar panels, like EV cars, are probably only marginally better than their fossil fuel competitors in terms of CO2 emissions (per KWh or per mile driven).

I wouldn't assume that they're light years ahead unless I see some credible data.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Looks like Argonne did the EV v gasoline breakeven point for me.

Tesla 3 v Toyota Corolla (33 mpg)

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifetime-carbon-
emissions-electric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/

---