It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie Sanders: After Paris Attacks What Greatest Threat to America

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Well at least that's not my point, surely you should realize that by now.


And? The discussion I was having with the other poster revolved around the use of coal in India and China where solar is not even remotely close to parity. They intend on using more coal in the immediate future. A lot more.



There's these things called houses, and they reside within urban metropolitan and city ordinances. Besides, it only takes a short period of time for the grid to reach the same LCOE.


And in places like New York City they are subsidized via tax abatement to make the installation appear more investment-friendly.


It's so not cool, I mean not at all a trendy thing to be green.


I have no desire to be 'trendy' with my home. Slapping solar panels on your roof is a semi-permanent situation that dramatically affects the street view of the property.


I'm gonna end this now, by having to pull your quote out directly.



Who was that quote discussing? What was the conversation I was having with the other poster about? Do you need a hint? Was it India and China? What is the cost of solar there?



It appears to be trending towards the cheaper energy source.


It better be getting cheaper because it was, for a long time, insanely expensive and heavily subsidized.




edit on 16-11-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer because global warming flooded his Coors Lite kegerator




posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

I don't think it's accurate to say that they don't intend to lower their coal use. They do.


Where did I say that they have no intention of lowering their coal use? They just have no desire or need to do so now.


They are also working on solar and wind. India is currently, actively working on 100GW solar capacity.


Source? Everything on Indian solar generation shows that any realization of that size takes place somewhere past 2030. In the mean time:


Indian coal demand could jump 42 percent, or 300 million metric tons, by 2020, and India is expected to add 124 gigawatts of electricity capacity in that time, according to Bloomberg Industries. In just two years, it may surpass China as the largest importer of seaborne coal.



The point is, India and China are already sitting down at the table and involved in the international dialogue and planning on energy and climate. They have acknowledged that climate change is a threat to the entire world.


And after these 'negotiations' they went right back to using more coal. India alone will use 2.5 times than we decertify.


Can Bernie Sanders make them adhere to his climate plan? No. No one can. That doesn't mean we should do nothing until they do. We are 2nd in carbon emissions, if we do anything to lower our emissions, we reduce the threat. We can do a lot more than we have been.


It still does not answer my question. If China and India are operating under non-binding agreements and burning coal at record rates how does this influence the perceived national security threat of global warming?



edit on 16-11-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Swills
Maybe Bernie is more interested in lowering all the blatant pollution going on world wide instead of finding that sweet spot on the thermostat.


Does he have a plan that gets the Chinese, Indians and other developing nations to follow his wishes?



Maybe you should educate yourself on all of the already occurring negotiations that include those countries, including everything from the UN 2030 agenda to the UNFCCC.


Maybe you should educate yourself on all the so-called science that tell us that the world can't wait.

They are now the biggest polluters. If they don't curb their emissions/economies right along with the rest of the world, then climapocalypse will occur and we'll all be dead by then.

Not to mention that a non-binding agreement by a sovereign nation that only take effect in 15 years is about as good as the promise the Democrats made Reagan to secure the border in 5 years or so back when he made that Amnesty agreement. We can all point to that secure border ... can't we?


Maybe you should educate yourself on the very real negotiations occurring as we speak to address the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) of developed versus developing countries. Those include the necessity of technology transfer, financial aid, etc. Historically the developed countries engaged in abject exploitation of the environment, which is a major reason that they developed and are ahead of the game.

cisdl.org...

Do we need to move fast? Do all countries need to get on board. Yes. Is your all or nothing approach and pointing the fingers at countries that are only recently becoming major polluters responsible or logical? Not in the slightest. It's critical that you realize that with few exceptions, the West and Japan are the largest cumulative polluters in history.

Also, without any doubt the pollution/capita and energy intensity/capita of developed countries are way ahead of China or India. That is how countries are judged, not be pure size. This is one of the ways economic health is measured, gdp/capita, not simply gross gdp.

"I. Definition of the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities

The principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ evolved from the notion of the ‘common heritage of mankind’ and
is a manifestation of general principles of equity in international law. The principle recognises historical differences in the
contributions of developed and developing States to global environmental problems, and differences in their respective
economic and technical capacity to tackle these problems. Despite their common responsibilities, important differences exist
between the stated responsibilities of developed and developing countries. The Rio Declaration states: “In view of the different
contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed
countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the
pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.”
Similar language exists in the Framework Convention on Climate Change; parties should act to protect the climate system “on
the basis of equality and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.”
The principle of common but differentiated responsibility includes two fundamental elements. The first concerns the common
responsibility of States for the protection of the environment, or parts of it, at the national, regional and global levels. The
second concerns the need to take into account the different circumstances, particularly each State’s contribution to the
evolution of a particular problem and its ability to prevent, reduce and control the threat.

II. Implications of the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities

In practical terms, the principle has at least two consequences. First, it entitles, or may require, all concerned States to
participate in international response measures aimed at addressing environmental problems. Second, it leads to environmental
standards that impose differing obligations on States. The principle finds its roots prior to UNCED and is supported by state
practice at the regional and global levels.

Common responsibility describes the shared obligations of two or more States towards the protection of a particular
environmental resource. Common responsibility is likely to apply where the resource is shared, under the control of no state,
or under the sovereign control of a state, but subject to a common legal interest (such as biodiversity – termed a common
concern of humankind). The concept of common responsibility evolved from an extensive series of international laws (see
section III below) governing resources labelled as ‘common heritage of mankind’ or of ‘common concern.’

Differentiated responsibility of States for the protection of the environment is widely accepted in treaty and other State
practices. It translates into differentiated environmental standards set on the basis of a range of factors, including special needs
and circumstances, future economic development of countries, and historic contributions to the creation of an environmental
problem. The Stockholm Declaration emphasised the need to consider “the applicability of standards which are valid for the
most advanced countries but which may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries.” In the
Rio Declaration, states agreed that “environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the
environmental and developmental context to which they apply,” that “the special situation of developing countries, particularly
the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority, and that standards used by some
countries “may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing
countries.”
edit on 16-11-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Well, he didn't say, "the most imminent threat", or the "most likely threat to result in a loss of life in the dozens or hundreds." It's too bad so many people are quaking in their boots over the terrible, yet relatively rare and minor risk which terrorism poses. Generally, you're far more likely to be killed by a drunk or texting driver than a terrorist.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: Metallicus

He's not pulling that out of thin air. The US Department of Defense feels the same way.

DOD 2014 Climate Change Adaption Roadmap (PDF)


Yeah because they go along with anything that gets them money.

Remember now.

The whole purpose of the military is 'shock, and awe' basically blowing things up elsewhere in the world that the EPA bans here at home.

Cluster bombs,DU rounds, Mother of all bombs, those are the people that created, and used nukes.

ALL of which is detrimental to the environment.

Now if global warming is the 'greatest' threat we face.

Only a matter of time before the US is spreading 'freedom, and democracy' to save the planet.

The only thing missing from the church of climatology is gitmo for 'eco terrorists'.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: ketsuko

How do you make the jump to war?


How else do you force the rest of the world to comply?

Not to mention, I was referencing 1984.


WAR.

We go to war to force them in to our beliefs.

Worked so well for drugs, and terrorism, and 'poverty'.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Metallicus

It's you that is out of touch with reality. What he said is based on scientific reports specific to the Syrian drought, which was intensified by climate change, as being what kicked off the unrest in Syria. The DoD also agrees with climate change being the biggest threat that we face.


Out of touch with reality eh.

First and foremost Sanders is a politician.

I have never seen one of those know what they are talking about.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And? The discussion I was having with the other poster revolved around the use of coal in India and China where solar is not even remotely close to parity. They intend on using more coal in the immediate future. A lot more.


You sure about that?

China's Coal consumption already Decreaseing





And in places like New York City they are subsidized via tax abatement to make the installation appear more investment-friendly.

I have no desire to be 'trendy' with my home. Slapping solar panels on your roof is a semi-permanent situation that dramatically affects the street view of the property.


Well it's a good thing the conversation doesn't have much to do with your personal taste in the look of a houses exterior, and even better that these cop-outs regarding tax reductions are fading out while the price per watt installed keeps declining.



Who was that quote discussing? What was the conversation I was having with the other poster about? Do you need a hint? Was it India and China? What is the cost of solar there?

It better be getting cheaper because it was, for a long time, insanely expensive and heavily subsidized.


Hey, I already went there with China, but India is another story. They are pretty well set on increasing coal production and import, so I'll give you that. Yes, the price was high but the technology is in a maturation phase. It makes sense if you're only interested in economics in some parts, but other parts it's more about doing well in consideration of the environmental impact of fossil fuel for now.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Alternative energy can NOT keep pace with China or India's population,growth, and consumption of goods.

Thats why they are still using fossil fuels.

So I am sure.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Alternative energy can NOT keep pace with China or India's population,growth, and consumption of goods.


Well at least I know you're up to your not making sense bit.


Thats why they are still using fossil fuels.

So I am sure.


You're sure of your nonsense, good. They will use more alternative sources as it becomes economically viable, but it most certainly will have nothing to do with a lack in capabilities to roll it out when that becomes the case.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese




Well at least I know you're up to your not making sense bit.


So alternative energy can keep up with the demands of close to 3 billion people(China/India) with more born every day?

Yeah someone isn't making sense.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Oh yeah Sanders is for the 'common' man.

He's a man of the PEOPLE eh?

Why yes Bernie i makes 'perfect' sense to push a technology only the '1%' can afford.

Hell I would love to see Sanders 'debate' Archie.



Just because this video even over 40 years old. Never get's old.

For those that think 'Climate change' is the greatest threat we face.

Hell they been saying the same thing for near 5 decades.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

That would be you. Check out real economic indicators. Your screw-ups are multifold. Not 3 billion, not growing by real economic indicators, and population is not an issue. The technology, resources, and manpower exists to make the switch. How do you think we switched to any other energy source throughout history? Yes, nonsense.
edit on 18-11-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: flice

I just have to point out the idiocy of this sentence:
"The US could end terror by withdrawing all your BS bases scattered around the world. You have no business being there or here."

Have there been greater or fewer terror attacks in europe since the withdraw from iraq? The drawdown in afghanistan? hmmmm... seems the world is not a safer place without your american police. I wonder why? could it be all of the muslims saying they want to kill america and the west, then building an organization to do it (not literally all muslims, figure of speech)? And you're saying we should just tuck tail and hide from them and that will do the trick? RUFKM?

You could make this argument 20 years ago. Today, you can't. Radical islam is at war with the west, ignoring it won't make it go away. Giving in won't make it go away (unless you're good with living under a government like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). Pandora's box has been opened and the only way out of it is triumphing over what has come out of the box.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Not hardly.

China 1.4 billion

India 1.2

Direct quotation:




So alternative energy can keep up with the demands of close to 3 billion people(China/India) with more born every day?



China and Japan have plans to build massive amounts of coal-fired power plants, while the United States is not only not building new coal-fired power plants, but it is also shuttering many of its existing coal-fired power plants because of Obama Administration policies. China is building one coal-fired power plant every 7 to 10 days, while Japan plans to build 43 coal-fired power projects to replace its shuttered nuclear units. The United States, on the other hand, cannot build new non-CCS coal-fired power plants and is shuttering existing coal fired power plants. These existing coal-fired power plants retiring in the United States are among the cheapest source of electricity generation in this country. To replace these plants with new generating capacity will cost the nation and thus taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars.




China consumes more than 4 billion tons of coal each year, compared to less than 1 billion tons in the United States and 600 million tons in the European Union. China surpassed the United States to become the largest global carbon dioxide emitter in 2007, and it is on track to double annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 2017. By 2040, China’s coal power fleet is expected to be 50 percent larger than it is today and these power plants typically operate for 40 years or more


instituteforenergyresearch.org...

Pay attention to that last part.

That is called demand.

Who doesn't know what they are talking about beside Sanders, and his supporters?

World Resources Institute identifies 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India
edit on 18-11-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I guess you don't realize that not a single thing you brought up in any way proves your case.

If you can't add simple figures (or are truly that lazy upstairs), then I can't expect you to critically think through the rest.

For anyone who is dumb enough to take your stats and think they are meaningful, I leave them be (including you).
edit on 18-11-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: imitator
From Unions to JP Morgan. So you're saying Sanders is receiving monies funneled through Unions who represent the workers and not the corporations? That's some leap of logic there but what you're really trying to do is smear Sanders. Nice try.


Yeah and unions are like the mafia..... and the Godfarther is like the corporations.

I showed you the Bernie Sanders money trail from AT&T, General Electric and all the way to JP Morgan. etc...

If you go down the rabbit hole you have (ICCP) International Climate Change Partnership.... guess which Godfarther's supports them.................. General Electric, AT&T!!!

A vote for Bernie is a vote for enforceable carbon dioxide tax!!!

Bernie Sanders is all smoke and mirrors...

edit on 19-11-2015 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=20048861]pl3bscheese[/post
You sure about that?

China's Coal consumption already Decreaseing


Yeah, I am. That article is from May, the one I linked is from last week. Plus you do not seem to realize that the underlying reason of that drop was due to slow in demand of goods which was mentioned in the article you linked:


Chinese statistics are notoriously unreliable, and it is difficult to say how much of the drop is from structural changes in the Chinese economy and how much is a short-term effect of the country’s economic slowdown.


They just approved 155 new coal plants, an article from a two weeks ago shows the one you linked form May was incorrect:


BEIJING — China, the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases from coal, has been burning up to 17 percent more coal a year than the government previously disclosed, according to newly released data.
www.nytimes.com...]China Burns Much More Coal Than Reported, Complicating Climate Talks




Well it's a good thing the conversation doesn't have much to do with your personal taste in the look of a houses exterior...


It certainly does for mine and frankly I do not need them, my electric bill is between $70-150 a month depending on the season.


...and even better that these cop-outs regarding tax reductions are fading out while the price per watt installed keeps declining.


Call when it is not subsidized, in my state there is still a $1.70 kW rebate which nearly half the installed demand rate.




Hey, I already went there with China...


And you were very wrong.


...but India is another story. They are pretty well set on increasing coal production and import, so I'll give you that. Yes, the price was high but the technology is in a maturation phase. It makes sense if you're only interested in economics in some parts, but other parts it's more about doing well in consideration of the environmental impact of fossil fuel for now.


And since India (and China) are going to continue to pollute at records rates how does that affect the 'greatest threat' to United States national security?



edit on 19-11-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join