Ranking Member Graves "The US has reduced emissions more than the next 12 countries combined". Case in point - despite this .. Global emissions increased 2.7% in 2018. This problem won't be solved unless industrialization and population growth are addressed.
Wow .. Listen to Graves .. Starts at around the 17:30 Mark. He is saying some of the exact same things I was saying in the previous thread
I have no clue what you are trying to get at with respect to anything I said ? What does your statement have to do with my claim - Not building pipelines harms the environment. ? You can stop driving if you so desire. That will not change the fact that we will use 20 million barrels of crude a day - over the next year. and we have to get that crude from somewhere - regardless of your driving habits. 46% of Crude coming into US refineries is imported - coming from 70 different nations. The question is not "if" we will use the product .. but where we will get the product from. Choice #1 - From North America (Pipeline from Canada - /and/or increased US production) Choice#2 - From Nigeria by tanker. Which is the more environmentally friendly choice ? One - or - Two (keeping in mind that the #1 environmental issue on the planet is Ocean Pollution - follwed by 2/3 industrialization/ population growth - followed by 4 - greenhouse gas emmissions ) It doesn't matter what order you put my list - Nigeria loses - and for a host of other reasons beyond the scope of the environmental situation. Nigeria is a huge polluter .. heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants directly into the oceans .. never mind the poor safety and other things. Canada and the US do not dump stuff like this into the Oceans .. Pipeline over land is a way safer and more evironmentally friendly than Tanker. The NDG states that we will not transport our pollution problems to other nations. Not only does buying from NIgeria do exactly that - it increases the pollution. So let Cortez know that next time she tries to block the Keystone .. or other pipelines - and wants to claim to be an environmentally conscious person - .
Your post said we needed to do something about population growth and industrialization.. I offered solutions for you. The people who are concerned about Co2 emissions have to lead by example or no one is going to listen to them.
Your solution was not a solution to the problem presented. The problem I put to you - is not solved by you stating "we would use less carbon if we stopped driving cars" The problem described in my post was not trying to solve the problem of oil consumption. The reality is that we are going to use 20 million barrels a day of oil tomorrow. You twirling with a poster claiming "lets stop using oil" - is not going to change this reality. The problem I was addressing was that -given this reality - how do we go about consuming this oil in a way that is the least harmful to the environment. I am not going to explain this to you for a fourth time.
You have made yet another point that has nothing to do with what is being discussed .. and makes no attempt to address the problem - or any claims in my post. You are spouting mindless gibberish - for the sole purpose of hearing yourself speak - completely oblivious to the what is being discussed - on some completely different page.
And yet, CO2 is not a pollutant - and will not cause "catastrophic, runaway global warming". I'll grant u though, the left is certainly getting a lot of mileage out of the fraud.
I just farted too. Happens when i eat too many veggies and not enough dead cow. Anyway sorry about the methane release i know it's bad.
Better yet: rich countries do a better job of controlling their pollution than poor countries. Keep the USA rich.
A precondition for seriously confronting reality is honestly admitting to it. It is a global crisis that a parochial mindset cannot address. Trump's and al Assad's twin apostasy in the matter precludes international leadership being assumed by the US or Syria. China (according to Fake Don the perpetrator of the climate change hoax) appears to be filling the leadership void and profiting quite nicely in the process. It has a huge jump on the competition. Just one instance:
Good thing everyone that testified flew to DC... At some point, the folks asking us to undertake such a massive disruption to our lives are going to have to start demonstrating that they themselves are willing to participate in that suffering. The choice between marxist oppression and socialist engineering seems a far worse option than simply living through the naturally occurring changes in our climate. The focus on rigid control of rights and liberties won't change the naturally occurring climate as it changes, but it will transfer the wealth and privilege to those acolytes of the faith that divine it for the rest of the world if you follow the marxist approach.....and after all, that is exactly the point...
I know, it never entered into your mind that it might be entirely more devastating to the environment and devastating to things like freedom to go your route, did it? So what should we take away from your involvement here? The production of solar panels isn't carbon neutral, nor is it environmentally sustainable, but you didn't know that. The underlying how the sausage is made doesn't matter to you, nor does the actual calculus that determines impact. Just message. That's all you rely on. The faith, the message, the transfer of power. That's all that's really important you folks like you.
When one accepts that climate change is a Chines hoax, contorted rationalizations for the denial of science become obligatory.
It's super hard to even know what you're trying to say here. Honestly, there is nothing "chinese" about this hoax. The hoax is trying to get folks to give up their freedom to live under a regime that would rob them of their freedoms and liberties using the excuse of climate changing. You, for example, seem to be entirely willing to ignore the science of the mechanics of the change, and rather would use fear as your preferred weapon to encourage folks to give up their liberties to folks like you. That doesn't seem like a hoax, it seems more like a naked power play. Interesting use of the picture of flooding in Paris. Cause, well, you know, nothing says conceit like building your capital inside of a known floodway, with historically known flood potentials, and yammering on about climate change ignoring the historic levels to which that river has historically flooded... But sure, you know its bogus, and yet, here you are still selling it.
Science will not kowtow to ideology. The flood of empirical data is inundating the pockets of denial. Apostates Trump and Assad may be the last to get the message.
the pic on the left could be repeated 1,000,000 times over the past 1,000,000 years and be pretty much the same (minus the tower) if you choose the right day and time and it would be just as dramatic and spooky as it is now. Stuff floods now and then especially when its located right on the water line. That pic also came from the NYT, which is no surprise, its generally a coin toss between WaPo or NYT with an outside chance its on Greta's Instagram
Oh the irony. Using a cartoon that depicts a sea island to demonstrate the onslaught of religious zeal.. Typical as well. I suppose it will be entirely lost on you to begin with, but perhaps you should investigate island resilience and the latest scientific models that suggest absent seismic events or subduction, islands generally build over their sea level. But why get in the way of all that ecstasy? When the flood of empirical data tanks your religion, you of all will probably be the most surprised huh...
Climate change killed off the Mayans. If only they had justice warriors back then to condemn the use of fossil fuels they would be with us today. Damnit!
