Elect me or the planet will not survive

Pocohontas gonna cure global warmin'.

 

I wonder why Obama didn't cure global warming. He must be a denier

 

Perhaps she should run for King of the World since between India & China they have over 350 GIGAwatts of coal fired power plants on the drawing board.

 

Republicans!

 

Sounds just like Trump "The only one that can save the nation is me" !

 

It would depend on what the Democrats intentions are and they would need to be really strong for her to achieve what she is saying but I also think despite the reality that a lot of American States are doing the best they can that if we get another Trump Presidency it probably is time up on the Planet. History that will not be would say that the United States destroyed the world due to greed, ignorance and stupidity. Anyway the US is already feeling climate change so I guess nothing will get through to those who want to be brave and destroy the planet for future habitation. The last great war - destruction of the planet won by the US Right.

 

Then it is folly to say he could destroy it?

 

Not sure about that but - Warren's comment is silliness - as was Trumps - albeit Trumps was likely slightly more true than Warren's comment.

I know environmental issues very well- having worked in clean-up/environmental engineering . My specialty was alternative remediation technologies such as bioremediation- getting bacteria to eat the hydrocarbons from a pipeline spill. A pipeline spill on ground is no big deal (sans contamination of the aquifer which is rare and the risk overblown) - When I was finished the farmers field would be more fertile than his neighbors for the next 10 years.

anyway - how is Lizzy going to save the planet - ? anymore than Cortez - "New Green Deal".

In serious circles - the #1 environmental threat to the planet - is not CO2. The biggest threat is pollution of the oceans with heavy metals, Persistent organic pollutants, fertilizer, and other things such as pH shift. CO2 changes also have an impact on the oceans so the two are connected but, CO2 does not make 2nd or 3rd spot on my list - that of a subject matter expert.

Now folks may debate 2 and 3 but not 1). This is not debated - unlike using complex models to make predictions - Chemical Changes in the oceans are directly measurable . We can tell you how many can's of Tuna a week you can eat before you exceed the Mercury guideline for pregnant women. The answer is 2 if your curious.

No press is given to this issue - it is all the CO2 bandwagon... and even less than 2/3 Industrialization and Population growth. Obviously - more people = more pollution .. and more consumption due to industrialization also increases pollution.

You have to keep all 4 in mind when assessing an environmental question.

The NGD states that we will not export our pollution problems to other nations. (a good mandate). So in keeping with this mandate - and the overall "saving the world" mandate - Why are we not building the Keystone Pipeline - and other energy initiatives ?

The raging fact - is that world oil consumption will increase by 1 million bd next year - and the US will use 20 million bpd - on average - every day of that year.

There is no "well what if we didn't use so much" -- good objective but, has no bearing on the fact that this is how much we will use - its a false choice - and we have to get that oil from somewhere. US Refineries import roughly 40% of their oil from some 70 different nations.

The choice is then not if we get this oil - it is where we get this oil from.

So which is the more enviro friendly solution ?

1) Canada - by Pipeline - (or increase in domestic production - pipeline like the ND pipeline - having same problems as Keystone - one of Trump's election platforms if you remember) - a nation who doesn't dump stuff directly into the ocean - has enviro standards. Pipeline is far safer - less risk - and more energy efficient than tanker. A non enviro but related point - getting from Canada/Mexico - way better for our economy. How many cross border shoppers do we have from Nigeria each year ?

2) Nigeria - a major supplier - by tanker. Nigeria is a major ocean polluting nation .. tanker is more pollutive and less efficient than pipeline.

It is a no brainer.. Canada - hands down ...Keystone creates jobs here two but it matters not whether the job is here or in canada - keeps the as we operate extensively in Canada - economies are connected in that way such that a benefit to one is a direct benefit to the other.

Nigeria ? not so much. This would be both exporting our pollution problem and increasing it.

Last time I checked - Cortez and Lizzy - and the Obama admin in general - and not all - but widely held Dem platform - were against new pipelines.

So how are policies that export our pollution problems and increase pollution going to help ?

2/3 - Canada's population is not growing - in fact it is decreasing and only rises through immigration - like the US and other first world nations. Nigeria ? -

Industrialization - Canada is already fully industrialized - and so increased economic activity will not increase individual consumption.

First world nations are (36) with respect to consumption - the study I read quite a while back .. China was (11) - someone eating a bowl of rice a day in Africa (1). The study stated that if China was to reach first world levels of consumption - world resource production would have to double.

Point being - when you industrialize a nation - the per person consumption skyrockets - so why on earth would we encourage this process.

There was roughly 1.4 Billion industrialize about a decade ago - say 1.8 now (a huge increase you will note) - That still leaves near 6 Billion to be industrialized.

So take a billion people (A) .. polluting 100 units - and a billion people (B) polluting 5 units.
Now decrease pollution of A by 20% over 10 years - and industrialize B from (bowl of rice a day) to halfway. What do the numbers look like ?

So we started with 105 units - 10 years later we are at 80 units from A + 50 units from B = 130 units .. an overall increase of near 30%

So why are we in this rush to industrialize Nigeria - we should be producing as much as we can - high polluting nations should be shunned from economic activity (not Sanctioned - but - it should not be option #1 - the "preferred option")

What we don't need - is someone like Warren or Cortez at the helm - because they have no clue what they are talking about.

 

I think a President does have the ablility to "save" a nation with the policies driven economically, domestically and internationally. The planet will not survive unless you elect a certain one..........not so much.

 

by raindancing...

 

Warren... sigh
I signed up for her email just out of curiosity, a couple of notes:
She seems to be pushing hard to get her donor lists up, has solicited money from me 7 times in 10 days, even for as little as $2.

Also, I found one from yesterday interesting, when the dem's always accuse the right of fear mongering..

Not only is she making some bold and ridiculous accusations but uses a solid dose of fear mongering as well, then tops it off with the oh so popular fascism angle.