For Democrats: Global warming point of no return; likely soon or not?

by kir Posted 2012/07/01 23:22:28

Related Topics: Global Warming, Democrat, Health Care, Health Insurance, Democrats, Nuclear, Co2, Emissions, Insurance, Government, Health

Read More

Read all 47 opinions

There are a lot of anti nuclear Democrats out there. There are also a lot of Democrats out there that are saying that within a few years CO2 levels will have risen so fast that the effects will be irreveserable.

If that's the case, why not support nuclear which could bring rising CO2 emissions to a hault?

If that's true, why are you focusing on ineffective health care bills that may add some people to the health insurance list?

Shouldn't the government be doing one thing and one thing only; preventing the destruction of the world?

wtw 2012/07/01 23:32:09

+5
The truth is it is only a political ploy to attempt to unite the left for the purpose of redistributing wealth in the world. It is all bout the world elitist trying to control!
>> See Replies

More polls by kir

syl 2012/07/02 21:09:44

I'm NOT a democrat-just the opposite, but I think nuclear power would be a good choice. It's better than being dependant on foreign oil, but then we don't HAVE to be dependant!

The USA has enough oil to supply it's needs entirely. Obviously it's politics to redistribute the wealth & power of our country, to what used to be the 3rd world countries.

I think that the powers that be, want one, giant world government, unfortunately.

reply
KrSpo 2012/07/02 17:09:32

ineffective healthcare bills? How silly.

so far as nuclear power over fossil fuels, in the immediate, sure it would help, but in a couple of years you will have a crap load of irradiated fuel rods and then what do we do? bury them and poison the planet even more? Nuclear and fossil fuels are not the answer. Wind, solar, and tidal energy are the only real solutions to the problems that humans have created on this planet

reply
kir to KrSpo 2012/07/02 17:17:30

Actually the spent rods can be used long term as low volume energy production. In any case; wind, solar, and tidal energy would take one hunderd years roughly to implement, while nuclear could be implemented within a few decades; it could be implemented even faster if there wasn't such a push to block it.

http://politicoid.blogspot.co... This isn't even including the decrease in cost and time to produce with the production of next generation LFTRs.

reply
KrSpo to kir 2012/07/02 17:20:13

Naw, I don't believe the 100 years nonsense. That is all politics and energy companies. You implement affordable home solar and wind, the energy companies would lose billions.

reply
kir to KrSpo 2012/07/02 17:33:02 (edited)

You're ignoring the limitations of solar and wind. There's only so much energy available per square foot even assuming 100% efficiency. You would be plastering every square foot of house with solar just to make a dent.

Look at the energy calculations and tell me where I made a mistake.

reply
KrSpo to kir 2012/07/02 17:36:38 (edited)

OK Solar only so far. a 200 square foot roof 'plastered' would produce 1.8 KW per day. That is fairly reasonable, with storage tech some could be stored in down energy times during the day. TBC

Add in the wind energy and solar heating, it might not be possible for an individual home to power itself fully taking into account non-energy saving refinements, however the reliance on fossil would be very very low. All of this depends on where the home is ofcourse. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico could very well be off grid, as many homes there already are.

reply
kir to KrSpo 2012/07/02 17:48:35

That's peak output; that's not the average for the year given varying weather conditions, but let's go with that for a moment.

Electricity usage US: 4,158TWh over 1 year (2008) = 474GW
Assuming that every house could produce that output 24 hours a day 365 days a year it would take 263,523,767 roof tops to replace the electricity consumption of the US; that does not even take into account other forms of energy usage.

reply
KrSpo to kir 2012/07/02 18:50:14

No reason not to replace things though. We could begin to replace fossil fuels with natural alternatives now. Get ride of 'clean coal' (what a laugh), even if we cannot fully replace, no reason not to partially replace and slow it all down now

reply
kir to KrSpo 2012/07/02 20:26:36

We could start to and we most definitely should start to, but what I am saying is that the limited amount of energy production per square foot and per operation for technologies like solar and wind is so low that it would take at least twice as long as building nuclear plants.

The issues with nuclear stem more from the population's lack of knowledge on the subject than actual dangers; nuclear is safe, even in the case of the Fukushima plant it took the worst earth quake and tsunami to hit Japan since Christ was born to cause them to melt down. Modern day technology would have even survived that.

reply
KrSpo to kir 2012/07/02 20:46:22

Fukushima was a natural disaster. However I have also seen the issues where companies have bad practices when they build plants and then its money down the toilet

reply
kir to KrSpo 2012/07/02 21:15:51

That same practice could destroy massive amounts of land and cause irreparable damage to wildlife with wind and solar. So we make sure that the businesses are accountable. Either way, shouldn't the government be spending every single dollar it has making sure the world doesn't end in a few years? That is if you really think that these people believe what they say about the point of no return.

reply
KrSpo to kir 2012/07/02 21:58:30 (edited)

I believe that as long as human continue to populate this planet we are past that point. We have already destroyed over 75% of the world's natural filters, and we do not replace as much as we take..

reply
kir to KrSpo 2012/07/02 21:59:52

Then shouldn't you be jumping off a cliff or something?

reply
KrSpo to kir 2012/07/02 22:01:05

I can think of millions of others who if they jumped off a cliff would lesson the footprint far more than I

reply
kir to KrSpo 2012/07/02 22:13:33

Perhaps, but you did say that as long as people exist on this planet so if you truly believed that you would ensure that you never reproduced and lived the shortest life possible. Just like if those running the government right now truly believes that the earth was going to be doomed within a few years, they would put all the government's resources into preventing that.

reply
KrSpo to kir 2012/07/03 13:45:11

I would affect the planet in a more positive way if I helped those people shorten theirs first, don't you think?

reply
kir to KrSpo 2012/07/03 13:55:30

Not really; you can't tell how your offspring would act anyway so definitely don't reproduce if you truly believe what you say.

reply
Radlad 2012/07/02 10:27:26

Shows how ill informed to outright stupid or just democrats for being the mindless drones for what they are. Rising CO2 levels are caused by global warming. CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming..........

My advise is follow the money. See who will become super rich by government and u.n. protocols and actions in a so-called attempt to stop it. Realize that as they get richer and more powerful it is you, me, us that will get poorer and weaker......

reply
cynsity 2012/07/02 03:20:32

+1
Globle warming is nothing more than a cause de joure. Same as it was in the 70s when we had globle cooling and were about to enter the ice age... only now because there is more communication and sensationalism it hasn't faded away like cooling did but it will it will

reply
Roger47 2012/07/02 01:33:24

We need to do something about CO2. Nuclear should be a part of the answer, provided we can count on effective governmental regulation to make sure it is done safely. Given the way Congress is currently underfunding governmental regulatory bodies so that they cannot adequately do their jobs, I do not have sufficient confidence in the ability of the regulators to keep us safe. The regulators sure failed badly in Japan, where the emergency backup generators failed even before the tsunami hit. Had there been no tsunami, there would have still been the meltdown.

reply
kir to Roger47 2012/07/02 01:42:33

How did the regulators fail badly in Japan? The Fukushima Daiichi plant had been hit with a fair sized earth quake in the past with no damage at all; it took the worst earth quake and tsunami to hit Japan in 2,000 years--since Christ was supposedly born--to destroy those reactors.

Besides, if we were really reaching a point of no return that would cause total destruction of life on earth, wouldn't it be worth the risk of a meltdown under such extremely conditions as a massive natural disaster?

reply
cynsity to Roger47 2012/07/02 03:18:51

It is hubris to think that man can control what occurs most promanatly through nature. Humans could completely quit using every single fule, start living outof doors and walking everywhere and never destroy another plant for the rest of earths existance and STILL CO2 would rise because when a LIVING PLANET does its thing aka releases the gases trapped under the surface through valcannic and crust vent actions teh CO2 level will exceed everything man could do for 100 years in mire minutes.

reply
KrSpo to cynsity 2012/07/02 17:12:12

+1
However, If we hadn't killed off 80% of the worlds CO2 filters (rain forests) that level was manageable.

reply
cynsity to KrSpo 2012/07/03 03:27:56

And all those forests would still need more CO2 because that is what trees and plants USE so with LOWER levels of CO@ the forests can not even make a comeback At no time was the CO2 levels higher than in teh palolethic period when the earth was filled with trees and green vegatation. Frens the main forest ground cover requirer very high CO2 levels to flurish. Trying to reduce levels is what is holding back reforesteration

reply
KrSpo to cynsity 2012/07/05 18:18:14

Poor argument to de-forest the globe. The wood industry has been using that line for decades, saying, oh it's ok, thee's ALWAYS more... well, there isn't and now we're screwed.

reply
cynsity to KrSpo 2012/07/08 05:17:24

in case you missed it TREES are RENEWABLE.

reply
KrSpo to cynsity 2012/07/09 14:41:57

ONLY if you plant MORE, which the lumber industry is NOT planting as many as they rip up., in case YOU missed it

reply
cynsity to KrSpo 2012/07/10 01:37:50

www.mnn.com/.../more-trees-th...
www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/Ar...
greenanswers.com/.../there-la...

They DO plant more. If they didn't they would go out of business. Kind works like that. You know maybe if those guys who lead Dodo hunting expeditions had been as careful they woud have stayed in business too.

reply
kir to KrSpo 2012/07/08 12:34:29

Actually the majority of CO2 filtration comes from the oceans, but yes, destroying all the rain forests is a problem. What we should really be doing is cutting down all the old trees and planting new ones because they sequester CO2 far faster than old trees.

reply
rand 2012/07/02 00:31:49

Without many of the "things" that government does, the world won't be remain organized enough to save. Scrubbers that take carbon from the air have already been invented. Reversing the increased carbonic acid contents of the oceans may be another matter. But, as is our history, technology gets us into fixes and will be needed to get us out...or our children out as the case may be.

reply
STEVE 2012/07/02 00:02:41

+2
FOOLISHNESS THAT HAS BEEN DISPROVED SO MANY TIMES...IT IS CALLED...WEATHER

reply
kir to STEVE 2012/07/02 00:05:14

Well there's definitely warming occurring; we're not sure as to what model is the correct one to describe it. Definitely the models that exist now are incorrect; they rarely produce results even remotely correct, but that does not exclude the possibility that we are having an impact.

Like I said; we should be building a ton of nuclear reactors. That way we can be independent from foreign nations when it comes to energy and there will be no possibility of global warming.

reply
Kane Fe... to kir 2012/07/02 01:27:58

Natural gas!

reply
kir to Kane Fe... 2012/07/02 01:43:26

It decreases our dependency a bit, but there isn't nearly enough of it to replace our other sources of energy, especially since our energy demands keep growing.

reply
Kane Fe... to kir 2012/07/02 02:20:09

You need some educating we have 1500 years of natural gas in the US alone.

reply
Teri- Oregon 2012/07/01 23:44:13

+4
Global Warming is a hoax It's July and I am sitting in my house with the heater on because its 64 degrees outside, They want to tax the air you breath, that's why they are screaming "the sky is falling".

reply
kir to Teri- O... 2012/07/01 23:46:12

Seriously? You suck; it's hot as hell here.

reply
Teri- O... to kir 2012/07/01 23:49:41

+1
It hasn't rained yet but those clouds don't look friendly lol.

reply
STEVE to kir 2012/07/02 00:03:39

+1
AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN HOT BEFORE?
YOU CAN NOT ASSUME CAUSE AND EFFECT

reply
kir to STEVE 2012/07/02 00:06:48

What's your point? I never argued that beyond a shadow of a doubt climate change exists; if you weren't so busy making sure all your letters were typed in caps then perhaps you'd realize that I am actually pointing out the absurdity of most Democrats. If they truly believed that the world only had a few years left before there was no chance of turning it around then they would be putting all of their resources into preventing that.

reply