Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 352 Next >>
Topic: Acting Presidential Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5767
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 11:38am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

That’s the best Mis-type/auto correct ever
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 39
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 12:21pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

James, you're right, and I should have clarified.  Deniers are out there, and some even occupy prominent political offices, but I think they constitute an extremely small minority of people; even on the political right.  

I think some on the left are too quick to slap the denier label on anyone who disagrees with their policy agendas, which is a discussion/debate killer (I'm not accusing you of this by the way).  

What are your thoughts on where we go from here?  As I mentioned, I think big changes were necessary for us to mitigate the effects of climate change, and we may have already missed the boat.  Right now it seems like all of the debate is still on how to best prevent or slow down global warming, rather than dealing with the consequences of what appears to be inevitable.  
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 11075
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 12:56pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN has endorsed Biden.


 QUOTE:
We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now


Back to Top profile | search
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5767
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 1:14pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

John - I don’t think we can mitigate the effects - the scale is too large to
be able to mitigate - we are going to have to get used to a number of
things, many of which we are already beginning to see the initial stages
of.
Examples are:
Extreme temperatures
Extreme rainfall in places we won’t expect it - a scale of rainfall that we
cannot mitigate with flood alleviation
Poor growing of crops
Decreased land mass to live on
Breakdown of weather patterns such as jet streams
Increased storms

That’s why we have been focussing on prevention - which we have
utterly failed at. Energy conservation yields far better results that
alternative energy, but we really need a good mix of both.

Politically, one of the issues we have now, is a President who doesn’t
believe in climate change & thinks that he needs to back polluting
industries to win votes. He’s backing this up with straight lies & has a
fan base that actually believes his lies. That group, I think, is
considerably larger than you think.
That he is putting deniers in key positions is very, very dangerous.
Trump is not interested in the debate. I recommend you look @ videos
of him talking about wind farms being bird killing fields, causing cancer
etc.
He doesn’t have facts to back those claims, so there is no debate to be
had with him - you cannot fight fog.

The only way forward is for Trump to lose.
If he wins, that’s it. Four years from now will be too late
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 12725
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 2:16pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Mitigating isn't a binary option. It is never too late to try and mitigate something. 

As to where to go from here: the first step would be for the US to re-commit to its previously made promises with regards to the Paris climate accords.

Another step is to recognise that improved efficiency and cleaner energy is a desirable goal, regardless of global warming... And that these are achievable goals.

Wind farms work. Hydro plants work. Clean electricity and they don't cause cancer. Government can lead the way to help build the necessary infrastructure that we need to move away from fossil fuels.

The number one way to guarantee we cannot achieve something is to say 'nope, can't do it!'


Edited by Peter Martin on 15 September 2020 at 2:16pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 39
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 2:43pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

I hate to be pessimistic, but I agree with James that we've failed at prevention and some of these things are going to happen now.  That doesn't mean we should stop trying, but given how badly we've failed until now, its hard to imagine that government and industry will implement the type of sweeping changes that have been called for before its too late.

At this point we have to figure out how to deal with what's coming.  Its time to pay the piper for the dance.  Fortunately, there is a lot that can be done if we can find the collective willpower.

As far as clean energy is concerned, I'm actually working on a hydro project right now that could be consequential. The inventor has created a way to construct micro-power plants that run off of a sealed system. The technology has been certified by a third party engineering firm, and is going through patenting.  We have a tentative PPA in place with a firm in CA.  Can't say more due to non disclosure agreements, but keep your fingers crossed, it could be a game changer. 


Back to Top profile | search
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5767
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 2:46pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

I agree Peter, but there are a lot of effects that we will just have to live
with, many of those in my list above.

We can try to mitigate, but the severity is going to prove difficult.

I live in a non-flood area. We now have floods each year. 100 year
return period storms are becoming 1 year return period storms. That is
an incredible thing to try to mitigate.

Sewers are not cheap to change. Often, it’s not the ability to mitigate, it
will be the cost of mitigation.
Other times, it will be an inability to mitigate. A lot of people are going to
lose land.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 27562
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 6:06pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Wind farms work.

********

The noise from them also causes cancer.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4757
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 6:13pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply


 QUOTE:
Wind farms work. Hydro plants work. Clean electricity and they don't cause cancer. Government can lead the way to help build the necessary infrastructure that we need to move away from fossil fuels.

Nuclear is the one resource that can provide future needs of energy but when I see so-called environmental activists decrying nuclear and working to actively block it, I know that they don't really have the best interests of the environment in mind, but are just using environmental issues as a tool to further their political aims. 

(Not saying Peter had this in mind when he posted it. Just using his quote to make a point.)


Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 13379
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 6:32pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

when I see so-called environmental activists decrying nuclear and working to actively block it, I know that they don't really have the best interests of the environment in mind, but are just using environmental issues as a tool to further their political aims. 

------

Or perhaps they have a genuine difference of opinion on what's best for the environment? They may be making the wrong calculus, but to assert disingenuity is fuckery along the lines of people asserting that masks are not about fighting the pandemic but about government control.

The real problem with nuclear energy is that plants are expensive and take a long time to build, and then something like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima happens and governments stop investing in nuclear for a while.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 2083
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 10:47pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

Or maybe they don't live anywhere near Hanford, WA?

And now, just when you thought the "very stable genius" couldn't say anything dumber he hits a new bottom!

“You’ll develop like a herd mentality,” Trump said. “It’s going to be, going to be herd-developed and that’s going to happen.”

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/trump-covid-pandemic -will-go-away-due-to-herd-mentality.html

Mooooooooo!
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4757
Posted: 15 September 2020 at 11:15pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

CLEAN ENERGY IS ON THE DECLINE — HERE'S WHY, AND WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT

This is nothing new. Many environmentalists have stated that they don't want cheap, plentiful energy since that will simply bring about more people. Back in the 1960's nuclear was touted as the best way to solve pollution issues since it is clean, cheap and plentiful. Activists who were opposed to providing cheap energy begin a disinformation campaign which has been quite successful. Nuclear plants are expensive because they have been forced to kowtow to ridiculous safety standards no other energy production method would ever have to shoulder, which also adds to their build time. Three Mile Island? Nothing happened. Chernobyl? 1960s crappy Communist technology. Fukushima? Crappy old 1970s technology. You can't compare them to a modern facility. Yet Germany, in their push for clean energy, banned all nuclear plants and fired up the coal plants instead. The activists won that round. 

Luckily, many environmentalists, the ones that really do want clean, safe and cheap energy for everyone, have been pushing for nuclear energy. 


Again, nothing new. This has been going on for decades. 
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 352 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login