Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll

Recommended Posts

Is it possible for the flood to be something that indeed

happened? The answer is yes. About 10000BCE a shift

happened in the axis of the earth because of the increased

ice on the poles, which resulted in melting ice raising

the levels of the oceans and flooding the whole world;

however, such a flood wouldn’t eliminate humanity on

Earth, and a great number of people would have survived.

We know sea levels have risen, and recently  the magnetic

north has begun to move, requiring GPS to be corrected.

I'm expecting the next flood to be a sea of plastic bags.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

About 57% of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the US come from transportation and power generation.  Significant reduction can be achieved with effective provision and use of public transportation, reduction in use of imported goods,  increase consumption of local agricultural products, reduce consumption of meat.  These changes are not that painful and can also have significant health benefits.

They also create local jobs. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I take it you've missed noticing the fact renewable energies have created jobs.

And what is the point of requiring more people to make the same amount of energy?

A more sensible goal would be for as much energy as possible to be produced by as few people as possible. Then the rest can get on with something else.

 

That drive towards efficiency is something we've done everywhere else we can in the economy, to the economy's benefit.

 

We could create more jobs in telecommunications by reverting to the old plug switchboards which require operators. Banning robots in car plants would create more jobs.

 

Creating jobs just for the sake of it doesn't benefit society at large, though of course it makes politicians feel good.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

And what is the point of requiring more people to make the same amount of energy?

A more sensible goal would be for as much energy as possible to be produced by as few people as possible. Then the rest can get on with something else.

 

That drive towards efficiency is something we've done everywhere else we can in the economy, to the economy's benefit.

 

We could create more jobs in telecommunications by reverting to the old plug switchboards which require operators. Banning robots in car plants would create more jobs.

 

Creating jobs just for the sake of it doesn't benefit society at large, though of course it makes politicians feel good.

Huh? You're trying to paint creating jobs as a negative here?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Will require some sacrifice such as no home heating, air travel, cars, shipping of cargo by ships at sea, and other modern conveniences such as reliable electrical power.

Home HVAC: heat pumps, solar, wind all work great.

 

Cars: electric, duh.

 

Cargo ships: nuclear subs are a hint.

 

Airplanes: electric works for short hauls. For intercontinental some innovation is required.

 

You seem to forget the paradigm shift from horses and coal to petro-fuels... it isn't as though we haven't done this before...

 

Any more dumb questions?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

And what is the point of requiring more people to make the same amount of energy?

A more sensible goal would be for as much energy as possible to be produced by as few people as possible. Then the rest can get on with something else.

Of course!! Why didn't we all think of that!! Automation and unemployment are the panacea for the current economic crisis and dearth of well-paying, full-time jobs!! Brilliant!!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

And what is the point of requiring more people to make the same amount of energy?

A more sensible goal would be for as much energy as possible to be produced by as few people as possible. Then the rest can get on with something else.

 

That drive towards efficiency is something we've done everywhere else we can in the economy, to the economy's benefit.

 

We could create more jobs in telecommunications by reverting to the old plug switchboards which require operators. Banning robots in car plants would create more jobs.

 

Creating jobs just for the sake of it doesn't benefit society at large, though of course it makes politicians feel good.

How about more people making the same amount of energy but with a reduction in environmental damage.

 

Your simplistic ‘efficiency’ mantra completely misses the environmental costs of current energy production and the the social and wider economic costs of putting people out of work.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

What absolute nonsense. If you are going to argue anything to support your racism then at least get your facts straight.

Although violent crime in London (as a percentage of the population ) was at it's highest for a decade in 2018, it had been steadily falling from it's peak in the 80's to an all time low in 2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London). 

You also don't have more murders in London than New York; this has been debunked as fake news perpetuated by the likes of Katie Hopkins and other erstwhile right wing nutters. For two months in 2018 murders in London outpaced New York but this was only for 2 months in 2018. In the whole of 2017 there were 116 murders in London which was fewer than half New York’s total of 290.  In 2016 there were 334 murders in New York compared to 102 in London. In 2015 New York had 352 murders compared to London's 109I could go on but I think you get the point (by the way a 5 minute Google search gets you all these stats but then that would not be adding to your echo chamber would it).

Perhaps things were seemingly better in the 50's but then you had plenty of other things to worry about such as wide spread poverty, infant mortality and what was then unpreventable diseases to contend with. This idea that everything was sooooo much better back in the good ol' days is just a myth perpetuated by the baby boomer generation to blame everyone else but themselves for their now sad and pathetic lives.

Footnote: - the word 'mugging' has been around since the 1840's (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mugging)

Also - I lived in London for 25 years, in places such as Croydon, East Ham, Brixton, and Whitechapel so don't try and tell me I 'don't know what I'm talking about' when it comes to living with the effects of immigration in London. You're just trying desperately to prove what can clearly be seen as racist views.  

 

 

 

 

What have I said that's 'racist'

 

Just because something is a fact does not mean it's 'racist' even if it does not fit in with a multicultural agenda.

 

And if you're so familiar with London why call yourself johnnybangkok, you should call yourself Johnny London.

 

What baby boomers do you know that have sad and pathetic lives. I dunno any.

Edited by yogi100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

What have I said that's 'racist'

Would you be happy to call your post xenophobic in stead of racist?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Would you be happy to call your post xenophobic in stead of racist?

Call it what you like, just don't call it late for its dinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your simplistic ‘efficiency’ mantra completely misses the environmental costs of current energy production and the the social and wider economic costs of putting people out of work.

Creating windmills and solar panels have environmental costs as well, just different ones. The fantasy of free, clean energy is just that - a fantasy.

 

Nobody's "putting people out of work". Green jobs are overwhelmingly funded by government schemes (Obama set aside $150 billion for that purpose in 2008.)  If the jobs hadn't been green jobs, they would have been in another sector.

 

Talk about simplistic.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Creating windmills and solar panels have environmental costs as well, just different ones. The fantasy of free, clean energy is just that - a fantasy.

 

Nobody's "putting people out of work". Green jobs are overwhelmingly funded by government schemes (Obama set aside $150 billion for that purpose in 2008.)  If the jobs hadn't been green jobs, they would have been in another sector.

 

Talk about simplistic.....

So give us a comparison between the environmental impacts of windmills/solar energy and any fosil

fuel of your choosing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...