From my view HRC seems to be in favor of the status quo; she’s not going to actively attempt to shut down plants (like Sanders) but she’s not pushing them and she’s voiced “concerns” over the waste. She can’t come out stronger than that and hope to be nominated by the Democrats because of the general fear of NP by the left.
She’s highly pragmatic, however, and I hold out hope that she’ll at least give ear to NP if she gets elected. Sanders would be a disaster.
Again, you only show all that you continue to ignore that Republicans would rather sink bills to deal with the issue of carbon emissions even if the bills include support for nuclear power.
Of course Bush decided not to follow Kyoto, but I do not think that Bush stopped that just because of Enron. The problem with that canard from the media then is this one:
Of course, the point made before was referring to the unethical moves of Enron. Not sure what this shows regarding what needs to be done because more scandals have been observed coming from fossil fuel companies funding unethical researchers.
While there is no cap-n-trade in place or new regulations. The point here is that scoundrels in energy companies will be an issue, with solutions and regulation in place or no solutions and no regulations in place.
Really, I think the most abundant energy source readily available is how much we use. Large amounts go into the manufacture of cell phones (that, last time I looked, get retired in the tens of thousands every day), happy meal toys, microwaves, packaging, et cetera, et cetera. Moving away from a disposable consumerist culture would immensely reduce our carbon footprint, and the “invisible hand” is not going to offer us any help in that.
As already noted, fossil fuels are artificially cheaper because their cost doesn’t account for the environmental damage and costs down the road. The alleged low cost of fossil fuels isn’t even relevant when they approach the threshold of unsustainability in terms of climate impacts, and as the data I linked before clearly indicates, we’re already at the threshold of dangerous climate impacts.
Alternatives often become cheaper only by widespread adoption and economies of scale. But the most important point here is that climate just doesn’t work on the sorts of timescales that you seem to imagine. When coastal areas become seriously threatened by sea level rise and major recurrent storm surges and damage to life and property from extreme weather becomes incontrovertibly severe, you aren’t going to get nature to turn around on a dime just because you suddenly realize we have to start cutting emissions. The CO2 imbalance alone will persist for centuries, climate feedbacks and impacts like sea level rise for many centuries more, and significant loss of polar icecaps is a form of slow feedback whose impacts may persist for thousands of years.
So you would like climate scientists to publicly and falsely announce that they don’t have a clue what the climate is really going to do, and then you’ll be willing to join the cause of climate change mitigation?
It looks to me like you’re just looking for an excuse to continue to do nothing.
As always, the commentary from the right-wing pundits reveals a lack of understanding of the problem and a disbelief in the science, and is as unhelpful as always.
That’s a narrow view of the water problems in California. An unsustainable amount of land dedicated to water-intensive crops is the culprit, drive the length of I-5 and that becomes obvious. Besides, that’s a water manager’s issue, average snow level doesn’t define California’s climate. Adding a few degrees temperature to a Mediterranean climate and it’s still a Mediterranean climate, so no changes are observed and none can be projected.
The idea that no changes are observed is not what research is showing, and if that change was not happening the water situation would be better as a change in climate points to less snow in the mountains that translates on less water available.
It is indeed the task of water managers to deal with the issue and even there it is clear that the managers are consulting the scientists and using their projections, not your underwhelming definitions of what “observed” means.
But the weather impacts resulting from that “small” temperature change can be drastic and persistent, so that by various other measures like precipitation you don’t have the same climate any more. And local temperatures are not the only cause of local climate changes – many of the underlying causes of persistent weather changes are the changing ocean and atmosphere circulation systems caused by rising average global temperatures.
We have to make a distinction between predicted changes and observed changes. The predicted changes were dreadful, but very few of them have panned out.
Excellent point … Southern California is at risk of desertification. My point is that this is within the Mediterranean climate. Bakersfield averages 6-1/2" of rain per year, I’m not so sure this becoming a desert could be called drastic, especially over 86 years. One would have to have a fairly long lifetime to even notice that change.
Northern California isn’t at risk, Redding averages 35" of rain per year and it would pretty much take the complete collapse of the large scale circulation system to change that very much. Them Westerlies are going to keep the moisture blowing in. The tropical climates will be pushing pole-ward, but not that far and not so fast.
California’s water problems start with her expanding population, increased manufacturing and more acreage under agriculture. When they exploit every drop of water during the wet years, things will go to shit during the dry years.
That’s the nature of the Mediterranean climate, and why the Romans built all those aqueducts.
Lets remember that we came to this line because you insisted that there was no difference between her and Bernie, it was.
Demanding specifics is not the issue here, the point stands that Hillary does support nuclear power. Bernie is not
And once again: your answer does remain that you do not care about what the Republicans are doing, and that was the main point I made too.
Republicans are not supporting nuclear power in the context of dealing with the issue here. Showing that indeed there is a difference there too, their denial is just telling the Republicans to scuttle any support of solar, wind and other alternatives, including nuclear if the bill deals with the issue. Hence the reason why to not vote for them is one thing to do as requested by the OP.
The first part of your post does not deserve a reply because it is based once again on using the popular press and not science as the counterpoint. Also most of the cites you use are coming from denier sources.
Once the science enters we can deal with the issue:
Not the point, the point for the previous poster was that there were no observed changes, so thanks for showing that once again he was wrong.
And here I have to point out that many times in the past I also pointed at a reduction of the numbers of hurricanes and that some areas will benefit from the change as good, but unfortunately the observed xenophobia in the world does demonstrate that no mass migration will be allowed, meaning that we can expect thousands if not millions that will die unless the issue is taken care of properly or if we prepare.
Again, since the Republicans do think that noting is happening we can expect to be chronically unprepared.
As long as we also remember that you have produced no specifics about how Hillary Clinton supports nuclear energy.
Please cite the specific ways that Hillary Clinton will support nuclear power. Unless you have such specifics, your allegation that she will actually do more than the GOP remains unproven.
It was a point I made first - Democrats are less interested in specifics to address AGW in practical ways, and more interested in using the topic to bash Republicans. That’s why they tend to respond to questions about specific and practical steps that realistic Democrats would propose by trying to change the subject to bash Republicans. Because actually doing something practical is hard, and might not redound to the credit of the Democrats we are supposed to vote for without question.
‘We should vote for Hillary, because the GOP is bad.’
‘In what ways is Hillary better, specifically?’
‘The GOP is bad.’
Also because the Democrats have no practical suggestions, thus we are going to be unprepared to do anything practical.
Already cited and even you acknowledged that Hillary does, if you continue to point at specifics then you are indeed condemning all the Republican congress for not being specific on their solutions for health care and many other issues. The point stands that you are avoiding what the Republicans are doing with bills that propose the same thing as Hillary: that nuclear power will have support as part of the overall solution.
That bill that was cited (and the video that showed what the Republicans are doing with the issue) demonstrates that the Republicans will scuttle any support for nuclear power under a framework of dealing with the climate change issue.
Well now we do move to why the GOP is bad, besides the bill example there was the demonstration of how Trump wants to not be a leader but a misleader in this issue.
Woman’s question: “I’m a volunteer with a leading conservation voters group and we want to know about what your plan is to reduce pollution that is driving climate change and endangering public health.”
Trump: “That’s an interesting question. Let me ask you a question… Ok, so we have global, let me ask you this, ok to [hissing and some boos from the crowd] take it easy… How many people, how many people here believe in global warming? [Turns around looks for hands up] You believe in global warming?
Who believes in global warming?
Who believes in global warming?
Raise your hand, nobody? *
One person…”
This is worse than ignorance, it is malpractice. Even professional “skeptics” tell us that global warming is happening but is natural, so the answer should had been yes, but not even that awareness was demonstrated by Trump.
What fake skeptics deny is the climate change that that warming brings and that it is human caused.
Actually, that time period was well within the boundaries of the recent industrial epoch, so they were already experiencing the early stages of global warming.
