POPE’S FLIGHTS TO CUBA, U.S. EMIT MORE CO2 THAN 557,000 LBS OF COAL

[Ruteger]

Pope warns against "climate change" while spewing more CO2 than 58,000 gallons of gas...

Can't make this stuff up!

http://www.infowars.com/popes-flights-to-cuba-u-s-emit-more-co2-than-557000-lbs-of-coal/

[b_dubb]

Including a link to InfoWars does more to discredit you than support your assertion. Thanks for taking that off my plate.

[WOTR]

Including a link to InfoWars does more to discredit you than support your assertion. Thanks for taking that off my plate.

+1
Planes do pollute- and heavily at that.  It may even be true, but I have lost all interest in even looking at it considering the link...  I remember laughing at all of the people watching the big climate change concert years ago.  All of the coal fired electricity produced to run the televisions and all of the artists who flew in and all of the people who drove for 1000 miles to attend. 

The point is that many things that are done "for the environment" hurt it- and this may be just another case of that.  But it is a poor link to prove anything...

[NowhereInTime]

Pope warns against "climate change" while spewing more CO2 than 58,000 gallons of gas...

Can't make this stuff up!

http://www.infowars.com/popes-flights-to-cuba-u-s-emit-more-co2-than-557000-lbs-of-coal/

Yet you consistently do.  This is the classic cuntservative "false moral equivalency" argument to excuse moronic behavior (like burning coal).

This planet no longer needs to burn coal.  However, we will burn nearly 1.8 BILLION tons of coal this year:

http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html

What's interesting, Ruteger, (since you brought up another "conservative culture war icon" in coal) is that for every ton of coal burned, it pollutes out 2.86 tons of CO2.  Wait?  How is that possible?  The carbon produced by coal bonds to oxygen atoms in the atmosphere, creating CO2. (In this case, over 5 billion tons per year from industrial use.)

And, since your Infowars link derives much of it's information from the EPA website, its only fair to note the same EPA recognizes how air travel, while contributing a lot of CO2, isn't as amenable to correction as, say, a power plant or an industrial site:

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

That is, until we are using these things again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2416809/Return-zeppelin-Firm-unveils-gigantic-airship-revolutionise-goods-carried-world.html

(and I wish it meant Led Zeppelin was going on tour, but this is good enough)

So, we have no alternative to jet fuel (except Airships, but not really yet) but we have many alternatives to coal burning.  What is the issue here?  That's right, there isn't one.

[chefist]

Yet you consistently do.  This is the classic cuntservative "false moral equivalency" argument to excuse moronic behavior (like burning coal).

This planet no longer needs to burn coal.  However, we will burn nearly 1.8 BILLION tons of coal this year:

http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html

What's interesting, Ruteger, (since you brought up another "conservative culture war icon" in coal) is that for every ton of coal burned, it pollutes out 2.86 tons of CO2.  Wait?  How is that possible?  The carbon produced by coal bonds to oxygen atoms in the atmosphere, creating CO2. (In this case, over 5 billion tons per year from industrial use.)

And, since your Infowars link derives much of it's information from the EPA website, its only fair to note the same EPA recognizes how air travel, while contributing a lot of CO2, isn't as amenable to correction as, say, a power plant or an industrial site:

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

That is, until we are using these things again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2416809/Return-zeppelin-Firm-unveils-gigantic-airship-revolutionise-goods-carried-world.html

(and I wish it meant Led Zeppelin was going on tour, but this is good enough)

So, we have no alternative to jet fuel (except Airships, but not really yet) but we have many alternatives to coal burning.  What is the issue here?  That's right, there isn't one.

This pope has said air conditioning is the enemy if global warming. Yet, his house, churches and hotels are all air conditioned...that is clearly hypocritical...

[WOTR]

...This planet no longer needs to burn coal.  However, we will burn nearly 1.8 BILLION tons of coal this year:

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.  Perhaps N.America and other "first world" countries do not need to.  However, it is unrealistic to think that such a cheap and plentiful resource does not still have a place in power generation for people who are poor and cannot afford the costs of alternative sources of electricity.  To expect a country like Ethiopia or Hati to invest in "clean" energy that the people cannot afford while the population starves makes no sense.

I apologize- but I am one of those people who agrees that coal is "bad"- but it does still have a place in this world unless we want to pay higher taxes to subsidize environmental causes in poor countries (and that may not be a bad idea either- your "bang for the buck" is much better- but nobody wants to invest in the infrastructure of another country regardless of the benefits...)

[chefist]

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.  Perhaps N.America and other "first world" countries do not need to.  However, it is unrealistic to think that such a cheap and plentiful resource does not still have a place in power generation for people who are poor and cannot afford the costs of alternative sources of electricity.  To expect a country like Ethiopia or Hati to invest in "clean" energy that the people cannot afford while the population starves makes no sense.

I apologize- but I am one of those people who agrees that coal is "bad"- but it does still have a place in this world unless we want to pay higher taxes to subsidize environmental causes in poor countries (and that may not be a bad idea either- your "bang for the buck" is much better- but nobody wants to invest in the infrastructure of another country regardless of the benefits...)

I agree 100%. I travel to China and Asia quite often and a significant percentage of the population burn coal to heat their homes in the cold winters.  There is no natural gas, wood, oil, electric capacity to perform this basic function.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

One of my engineering professors showed me this graph of global energy substitution curves back in the early 1990s.  I'm surprised I finally found a copy of it online.



Note that all power sources follow a similar rate of adoption.  Nuclear shows a sharp increase, but an updated chart would show nuclear falling off and probably approaching the predicted curve again.  The best I could do was this prediction of energy usage up to 2100 (I think they got nuclear wrong.  It will climb back up again).



In any case, even if we developed clean nuclear fusion right now you would have to expect, due to financial and social pressures, that adoption would take many years.  We're talking about an industry where plants have been amortized over decades.

[chefist]

You are absolutely right. We need fusion going forward... Heck if we had just implemented a fission system like France we would have not had to rely on fossil fuels exclusively all these years...

[b_dubb]

I agree 100%. I travel to China and Asia quite often and a significant percentage of the population burn coal to heat their homes in the cold winters.  There is no natural gas, wood, oil, electric capacity to perform this basic function.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_brown_cloud

They need to start using alternatives if they want to stick around

[Ruteger]

Nobody,

To quote you: "This planet no longer needs to burn coal.  However, we will burn nearly 1.8 BILLION tons of coal this year"

Please, let's shut off ALL the coal plants this very day. But, my precious, how will your Leaf get it's recharge? Magical Obama unicorn energy?

Perhaps your negro sodomite in the white house has an efficient and cost-effective answer to coal? You whining hypocrite liberals are a disgrace.

Yet you consistently do.  This is the classic cuntservative "false moral equivalency" argument to excuse moronic behavior (like burning coal).

This planet no longer needs to burn coal.  However, we will burn nearly 1.8 BILLION tons of coal this year:

http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html

What's interesting, Ruteger, (since you brought up another "conservative culture war icon" in coal) is that for every ton of coal burned, it pollutes out 2.86 tons of CO2.  Wait?  How is that possible?  The carbon produced by coal bonds to oxygen atoms in the atmosphere, creating CO2. (In this case, over 5 billion tons per year from industrial use.)

And, since your Infowars link derives much of it's information from the EPA website, its only fair to note the same EPA recognizes how air travel, while contributing a lot of CO2, isn't as amenable to correction as, say, a power plant or an industrial site:

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

That is, until we are using these things again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2416809/Return-zeppelin-Firm-unveils-gigantic-airship-revolutionise-goods-carried-world.html

(and I wish it meant Led Zeppelin was going on tour, but this is good enough)

So, we have no alternative to jet fuel (except Airships, but not really yet) but we have many alternatives to coal burning.  What is the issue here?  That's right, there isn't one.

[NowhereInTime]

This pope has said air conditioning is the enemy if global warming. Yet, his house, churches and hotels are all air conditioned...that is clearly hypocritical...

I would prefer we pursue a building cooling strategy like this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-rooftop-garden/

What's great about this article is that it contains an actual project my conservative friends can use to prove the veracity of the idea.  The lower temperatures mean consuming less energy (and reduced need for air conditioning); the garden can either be reflective (flowers) or productive (vegetables or, hey! even WEED!).

Further, we could go back to using cold water chillers like in the old days; Macy's in Stamford, CT uses one.  On the hottest days it has a tough time keeping a building cool but for most it works just fine.

Or, we could install solar panels which would also double to serve a building's energy needs.

It would be a true statement on stewardship if the Pope would direct either of these to be installed on functionary buildings in and around the Vatican.

[NowhereInTime]

Nobody,

To quote you: "This planet no longer needs to burn coal.  However, we will burn nearly 1.8 BILLION tons of coal this year"

Please, let's shut off ALL the coal plants this very day. But, my precious, how will your Leaf get it's recharge? Magical Obama unicorn energy?

Perhaps your negro sodomite in the white house has an efficient and cost-effective answer to coal? You whining hypocrite liberals are a disgrace.

Whack a Doodle;

As the great society we are, we have proven that coal burning has become obsolete.

Solar, wind, hydro (like CL& P uses Candlewood Lake to move it's turbines: http://connecticuthistory.org/creating-candlewood-lake/  ) are all affordable, responsible, and effective ways to supply grids.

Fuel cells, like the ones produced by Fuel Cell Energy ( how they work: http://americanhistory.si.edu/fuelcells/basics.htm  ) are alternatives already in use by major cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Tokyo.

You're a cuntservative who likes to berate Barry O as "leading from behind"; why wouldn't you want the US to lead on these ever expanding market opportunities?  Why leave this to the Chinese?

http://www.ibtimes.com/china-leads-16-jump-global-clean-energy-investments-solar-wind-sectors-grow-1778744

http://www.evwind.es/2015/06/21/china-leads-the-world-in-solar-power-growth/52869

Yet you do leave this to them:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/16/3669561/floridians-solar-choice-proposal-opposition/

So, yeah, we do have a cost efficient, prodcutive answer to coal; why don't you chickenhawks get on board something that truly demonstrates "American Exceptionalism" for once and stop letting the rest of the world take our market share away?

BTW, what's a "Leaf"?  Nevermind.  You're fucking crazy.

[NowhereInTime]

I agree 100%. I travel to China and Asia quite often and a significant percentage of the population burn coal to heat their homes in the cold winters.  There is no natural gas, wood, oil, electric capacity to perform this basic function.

There's plenty of sun, wind, and rain.  It's why China signed the Clean Energy Cooperation Agreement:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/fact-sheet-us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c
 
They are making fast moves to eliminate their dependence on coal. They're also looking to end their dependence on oil. That's why they are rapidly building Tesla style battery charging infrastructure (in many cases supported by either fuel cell and/or solar) in light of Musk opening up his patents to Chinese manufacturing:

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20141019000003&cid=1206

China will lead and Asia will follow suit or be left behind.  Coal is obsolete and choking people to death; even Party bigwigs.

[chefist]

I would prefer we pursue a building cooling strategy like this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-rooftop-garden/

What's great about this article is that it contains an actual project my conservative friends can use to prove the veracity of the idea.  The lower temperatures mean consuming less energy (and reduced need for air conditioning); the garden can either be reflective (flowers) or productive (vegetables or, hey! even WEED!).

Further, we could go back to using cold water chillers like in the old days; Macy's in Stamford, CT uses one.  On the hottest days it has a tough time keeping a building cool but for most it works just fine.

Or, we could install solar panels which would also double to serve a building's energy needs.

It would be a true statement on stewardship if the Pope would direct either of these to be installed on functionary buildings in and around the Vatican.

I'm 100% for finding more ways to conserve energy...heck, it just lowers your bill if you program your thermostat properly! Also, another common sense design change would be to have the HVAC system bring in outside air when the temperature is at the desired level.  Many times the AC is used even when the outside air temperature is perfect! Simply having an external intake duct with an automatic damper would make that possible!

There are so many ways to improve and use less energy.  However, one must take care before prosteletizing anything! Religion or Policy... You have to walk the walk...a good example is the actor Ned Begley...he lives in a small LA craftsman style house and rides his bike! He is in a position to preach about energy conservation...not the other actors that live in mansions and drive 12 cyclinder sports cars! 

[NowhereInTime]

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.  Perhaps N.America and other "first world" countries do not need to.  However, it is unrealistic to think that such a cheap and plentiful resource does not still have a place in power generation for people who are poor and cannot afford the costs of alternative sources of electricity.  To expect a country like Ethiopia or Hati to invest in "clean" energy that the people cannot afford while the population starves makes no sense.

I apologize- but I am one of those people who agrees that coal is "bad"- but it does still have a place in this world unless we want to pay higher taxes to subsidize environmental causes in poor countries (and that may not be a bad idea either- your "bang for the buck" is much better- but nobody wants to invest in the infrastructure of another country regardless of the benefits...)

This is a huge opportunity for the US to lead the world.  Conservatives are always bemoaning "leading from behind" yet here is a GOLDEN opportunity to demonstrate true American Exceptionalism by helping developing nations (and future markets) to create their own green energy grids! 

So many countries have access to sun, wind, and to a lesser extent, hydro power.  There is a great opportunity to establish, at least in urban centers in so many countries, a precedence for using electric powered vehicles recharged off of a newly installed electrical grid or from fuel cells which, after initial investment (from US as a foreign policy aid initiative) would be cost effective to maintain and utilize.

Why not start with Baghdad?  Why would we encourage them to rebuild oil burning power plants?  Just because they have oil?  What if we took the lead and built a grid, along with panel installation in neighborhoods, that would allow Baghdad (or Mogadishu, or Addis Ababa, or Havana - you get the point) to be self sufficient and self sustaining?

After all, isn't self-sufficiency the cornerstone of conservative doctrine?!?

You're right WOTR - coal is bad.  It causes miners to get lung cancer.  Too many die in mine collapses. It's filthy and its use toxifies our people.  It can be replaced, if we show the actual will to lead rather than let people sit back and talk about leading or "exceptionalism".

[albrecht]

He was driven around in a small Fiat so that makes up for the "carbon footprint" caused by global world tours with jet planes, entourages, minions, etc. His State also has one of the most stringent immigration policies (and even visitation policies) of any country but, again, that is "made up for" by his rhetoric of encouraging Western nations to accept any refugee or immigrant- no matter how dangerous or from what country they come- by the hundreds of thousands without any questions about costs, cultural preservation, terrorism, rape, background (or even identity,) or the other drains on social systems.

[NowhereInTime]

He was driven around in a small Fiat so that makes up for the "carbon footprint" caused by global world tours with jet planes, entourages, minions, etc. His State also has one of the most stringent immigration policies (and even visitation policies) of any country but, again, that is "made up for" by his rhetoric of encouraging Western nations to accept any refugee or immigrant- no matter how dangerous or from what country they come- by the hundreds of thousands without any questions about costs, cultural preservation, terrorism, rape, background (or even identity,) or the other drains on social systems.

Again you demonstrate an single minded, single issue tenacity without peer.  I wonder how long it would take you to run a thread about Snickers bars into an anti-immigrant rant...

[albrecht]

This is a huge opportunity for the US to lead the world.  Conservatives are always bemoaning "leading from behind" yet here is a GOLDEN opportunity to demonstrate true American Exceptionalism by helping developing nations (and future markets) to create their own green energy grids! 

So many countries have access to sun, wind, and to a lesser extent, hydro power.  There is a great opportunity to establish, at least in urban centers in so many countries, a precedence for using electric powered vehicles recharged off of a newly installed electrical grid or from fuel cells which, after initial investment (from US as a foreign policy aid initiative) would be cost effective to maintain and utilize.

Why not start with Baghdad?  Why would we encourage them to rebuild oil burning power plants?  Just because they have oil?  What if we took the lead and built a grid, along with panel installation in neighborhoods, that would allow Baghdad (or Mogadishu, or Addis Ababa, or Havana - you get the point) to be self sufficient and self sustaining?

After all, isn't self-sufficiency the cornerstone of conservative doctrine?!?

You're right WOTR - coal is bad.  It causes miners to get lung cancer.  Too many die in mine collapses. It's filthy and its use toxifies our people.  It can be replaced, if we show the actual will to lead rather than let people sit back and talk about leading or "exceptionalism".

You are right, actually I would think there could be money to be made by an innovative entrepreneur. And actually some opportunities for the "developing world" (see, I can be PC also) to even "jump ahead" in some circumstances and skip the "usual" way to development. We already see how things like cell phones, GPS, mobile-banking, etc can cause some 3rd World countries to jump to new technology without the heavy investment in older stuff. (Go from no/limit communications to everyone connected, bank or send payments by phone, etc.)  Maybe even a way to break chains that usually come with foreign and heavy investment (or even banker/IMF interest-rate and currency manipulation?) Though there would still be opportunities for the big boys in stuff like dams, power-lines, etc. Actually in some of those most autocratic regimes certain "innovations" could even be tested/forced (as you say try out only electric or, even better, only electric self-driving cars. Google has big bucks. Partner with an autocrat and try it out in a major city!)

Thing is in those 3rd world countries, former communist ones, (and to an extent in some of our countries) the "older" technology means the jobs. What are they going to do instead of mining, drilling, digging, etc? Right now- not decades from now or the next generation but the people now? Already unemployment is an issue. And I doubt google will be hiring many of them. (and to get back to the real subject- they shouldn't just be allowed to emigrate here or Western countries.  )