B) the world will end if we don't take action in the next 12 years
. Seems like reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Now if B is actually true is a bit more debatable and comes down to your definition of ending. But the general point that it takes a while for changes to take effect and what the effects of unavoidable climate change will be, that extra .5 degree more heating might be pretty fatal...
B) the world will end if we don't take action in the next 12 years
. Seems like reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Now if B is actually true is a bit more debatable and comes down to your definition of ending. But the general point that it takes a while for changes to take effect and what the effects of unavoidable climate change will be, that extra .5 degree more heating might be pretty fatal...
This is what Turtleb said:
"A congressman was saying last year the world will end in 12 years if climate change was not addressed."
Fat Hurts said no Congressman said that.
What AOC said: "urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will “destroy the planet” in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue"
Sure looks damn similar. Maybe you and Fat Hurts have a tough time with english language.
B) the world will end if we don't take action in the next 12 years
. Seems like reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Now if B is actually true is a bit more debatable and comes down to your definition of ending. But the general point that it takes a while for changes to take effect and what the effects of unavoidable climate change will be, that extra .5 degree more heating might be pretty fatal...
This is what Turtleb said:
"A congressman was saying last year the world will end in 12 years if climate change was not addressed."
Fat Hurts said no Congressman said that.
What AOC said: "urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will “destroy the planet” in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue"
Sure looks damn similar. Maybe you and Fat Hurts have a tough time with english language.
You have a hard time with the truth. According to your own article, here is what AOC said:
“Millennials, and Gen z, and all these folks that come after us, are looking up and we’re like ‘the world will end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'”
AOC was merely characterizing the attitude of others.
"A congressman was saying last year the world will end in 12 years if climate change was not addressed."
Fat Hurts said no Congressman said that.
What AOC said: "urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will “destroy the planet” in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue"
Sure looks damn similar. Maybe you and Fat Hurts have a tough time with english language.
You have a hard time with the truth. According to your own article, here is what AOC said:
“Millennials, and Gen z, and all these folks that come after us, are looking up and we’re like ‘the world will end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'”
AOC was merely characterizing the attitude of others.
I showed you the quote. it was identical. You are a troll and a bad one at that. Done wasting my time with you. You are not honest about anything.
😹"The top three conservation actions are to set thermostats to 78 degrees or higher, avoid using large appliances and charging electric vehicles, and turn off unnecessary lights. "Lowering electricity use during that time will ease strain on the system, and prevent more drastic measures, including rotating power outages," California Independent System Operator (CAISO) told customers.
"during that time" meaning from 4pm to 9pm. No biggie. Very little EV charging happens during that time anyway.
Personally, I think CA will have solved this before it becomes a problem, but most people I know (including me) plug my car in as soon as I get home.
I think AOC was dead serious when she said what she did. She walked it back when people started making fun of her, but she probably still believes it.
It is thought she was referencing a report from the UN--I'm sure she didn't read it and who she heard about it from probably didn't read it either--which said we need something like a 50% reduction in 12 years and net zero in 32 years or we're screwed.
Point is, the first world (if that is an allowed term anymore) emits 25% of CO2. Without buy in from other countries, reducing our living standards to hunter/gatherer status is going to accomplish next to nothing in terms of the earth's climate.
California, for example, if they truly want to prepare for climate change, would be spending the money on dams so there will be enough water and managing their forests so they don't all burn down. Not shutting down nuclear plants and requiring electric cars.
I think AOC was dead serious when she said what she did. She walked it back when people started making fun of her, but she probably still believes it.
It is thought she was referencing a report from the UN--I'm sure she didn't read it and who she heard about it from probably didn't read it either--which said we need something like a 50% reduction in 12 years and net zero in 32 years or we're screwed.
Point is, the first world (if that is an allowed term anymore) emits 25% of CO2. Without buy in from other countries, reducing our living standards to hunter/gatherer status is going to accomplish next to nothing in terms of the earth's climate.
California, for example, if they truly want to prepare for climate change, would be spending the money on dams so there will be enough water and managing their forests so they don't all burn down. Not shutting down nuclear plants and requiring electric cars.
America needs to leverage its strength to force the whole world to change. Or we heat up 4 degrees by 2100 and the systems will be strained to the point of breaking. Pointing fingers certainly won't help us.
I think AOC was dead serious when she said what she did. She walked it back when people started making fun of her, but she probably still believes it.
It is thought she was referencing a report from the UN--I'm sure she didn't read it and who she heard about it from probably didn't read it either--which said we need something like a 50% reduction in 12 years and net zero in 32 years or we're screwed.
Point is, the first world (if that is an allowed term anymore) emits 25% of CO2. Without buy in from other countries, reducing our living standards to hunter/gatherer status is going to accomplish next to nothing in terms of the earth's climate.
California, for example, if they truly want to prepare for climate change, would be spending the money on dams so there will be enough water and managing their forests so they don't all burn down. Not shutting down nuclear plants and requiring electric cars.
AOC is very well versed on the subject of climate change. Her characterization was spot on even if the conservative media twisted what she said.
AOC knows what the IPCC was saying, which is that we have a very short period of time to get our act together or we reach a point of no return.
America needs to leverage its strength to force the whole world to change. Or we heat up 4 degrees by 2100 and the systems will be strained to the point of breaking. Pointing fingers certainly won't help us.
That is certainly working out.
China is by far the biggest emitter. Let's make it clear that we will defend Taiwan and try to isolate them economically if they try anything like we did with Russia. They'll need to keep the lights on if that happens. China has a lot of coal. "And still they build more: China is planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces — equivalent to adding about 1.5% to its current annual emissions — according to a new report."
Well, Sri Lanka is pretty small, we can boss them around. How about we get them to go organic? "Sri Lanka, an island of 22 million people, continues to be in the grip of its worst economic and political crisis since independence on 10 February 1948"
The Dutch are pretty friendly, lets get their farmers to ease off on the nitrates. "Aug 16, 2022 Police in the Netherlands have reportedly arrested over 100 people in relation to protests against EU green agenda measures which will see up to 30 per cent of livestock farms in the country forced to close."
About the only success I can think of by the environmental crusaders is converting much of the coal in the US to natural gas. "CO2 emissions from the electric power sector fell by 4.9% in 2016. A significant reduction in coal use for electricity generation was offset by increased generation from natural gas and renewable sources. Renewables do not emit CO2, and a shift towards natural gas from coal lowers CO2 because natural gas has lower emissions per unit of energy than coal and because natural gas generators typically use less energy than coal plants to generate each kilowatthour of electricity"
Gas pairs with renewables well because the plants can be fired up quickly to match demand. But gas is apparently not good enough any more because we're led by idiots (literally, when you look at the senile geriatrics at the top and the AOCs) and renewables without the gas leads to blackouts.
I think AOC was dead serious when she said what she did. She walked it back when people started making fun of her, but she probably still believes it.
It is thought she was referencing a report from the UN--I'm sure she didn't read it and who she heard about it from probably didn't read it either--which said we need something like a 50% reduction in 12 years and net zero in 32 years or we're screwed.
Point is, the first world (if that is an allowed term anymore) emits 25% of CO2. Without buy in from other countries, reducing our living standards to hunter/gatherer status is going to accomplish next to nothing in terms of the earth's climate.
California, for example, if they truly want to prepare for climate change, would be spending the money on dams so there will be enough water and managing their forests so they don't all burn down. Not shutting down nuclear plants and requiring electric cars.
America needs to leverage its strength to force the whole world to change. Or we heat up 4 degrees by 2100 and the systems will be strained to the point of breaking. Pointing fingers certainly won't help us.
B) the world will end if we don't take action in the next 12 years
. Seems like reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Now if B is actually true is a bit more debatable and comes down to your definition of ending. But the general point that it takes a while for changes to take effect and what the effects of unavoidable climate change will be, that extra .5 degree more heating might be pretty fatal...
This is what Turtleb said:
"A congressman was saying last year the world will end in 12 years if climate change was not addressed."
Fat Hurts said no Congressman said that.
What AOC said: "urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will “destroy the planet” in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue"
Sure looks damn similar. Maybe you and Fat Hurts have a tough time with english language.
Have you seen the flooding in Pakistan? Drought in Europe and the Western US? Floods in Mississippi with the capitol having no drinking water for the foreseeable future due to a catastrophic failure of the water treatment system? 1,000 year flood in Dallas? Nor Cal is set to get temps of 110-115 later this week into next, which may beat all records for the 20th century.
I am not really so sure taking AOC literally is really out of line given what has been happening with the climate this year.
Striking new satellite images that reveal the extent of Pakistan's record flooding show how an overflowing Indus River has turned part of Sindh Province into a 100 kilometer-wide inland lake.
Striking new satellite images that reveal the extent of Pakistan's record flooding show how an overflowing Indus River has turned part of Sindh Province into a 100 kilometer-wide inland lake.
Really? How did you think the Mach-e felt when you drove it?
I don't need to drive it to know it is inferior. The facts objectively show that the Tesla is better.
If you actually drive both like me (and others I know), you’d find out that my Mach-e is a better car than a model y. Surprisingly, it’s not even close.
If you want a computer, sure, a Tesla would be a better choice. As a vehicle, the Mach-e blows any Tesla away. This is coming from someone who almost bought a Tesla. It’s just that the Mach-e is better.
Personally, I think CA will have solved this before it becomes a problem, but most people I know (including me) plug my car in as soon as I get home.
Most parts of CA have "time of use" rates. So there is already a financial incentive to set your car to charge over night when the rates are cheaper.
Sure, but the cost is minimal. It’s cheap to charge at home at any time of day. When I come back from the office and get home. I plug in. Most people do. We’re not waiting until 10pm to charge.
