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.

 

Why NO Mention of Carbon Offsets or Credits? A Security Threat Assessment of Global Climate Change

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

It's not even about birth rates and breeding. It's about people like Bernie with a large carbon foot print telling everyone else they are the problem. Why can't I have a large carbon foot print like Bernie. Why can't I own 3 homes and jet set around the country on chartered flights. Why can't I kill thousands of trees writing books that get dumped into landfills in a few years. Would it be ok if I had a smaller tax rate like him while he was amassing his millions.

Is being part of the global 1% like Bernie also a noble path for me? According to him it's not. I'm the problem.




posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

You point out Saudi as getting lots of money.
The United States produces the largest percentage of our oil usage.

As for imports.
Canada is 43%
Saudi is 9%

The whole persian Gulf is 15%

That's percentage of total imports not total usage.
We produce around 70% of our own oil so if my math is working Saudi sells us less than 3% of our oil.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Again, I do appreciate your passionate arguments. I have no problem with you polluting as much as you want. I don't expect any individual to solve the pollution problem. It's simply not possible.

What I want is good public policy. Many people believe burning fossil fuel causes a pollution problem. The answer is NOT you paying $10 / gallon for gasoline. People are still going to pollute burning gasoline no matter what it costs.

The solution, in my opinion, is having public policy supporting research into viable alternatives to fossil fuel. Whatever the solution is it will require top-down solution design of the entire system from front to back. But we will never make any progress unless we try.

The Chinese are going to solve this problem. They have huge pollution problem with regards to generating electricity using coal.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

So you love the Saudi's too. What difference does it make where the money goes it's a huge dependency which causes tons of pollution.

If a viable alternative exists whichever country finds it will be in a superior economic position. This is my main premise. Do you disagree with it or do you want to continue to split hairs over the 15%.

If you love fossil fuel and don't want to ever change then just say so.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

So are you just completely ignoring my point on the petrochemicals?

Is the question to hard?
If so just admit it.

I'll state it once again.
Even if we have an alternate clean cheap energy source.... What are you going to do with the void created by not having a material source for petrochemicals?

Do you want grandpa to die in the hospital because we don't have hoses for his IV bag?



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Why don't they initiate tax cuts to encourage living cleaner?

Got a hybrid car? Tax cut.
Less than 2 kids? Tax cut.
X amount recycled. Tax cut.

Put in place a national plan for public school kids to grow oyster mushrooms for oil spill cleanups?

Build that wall out of solar panels?



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The UK report Absolute Zero was presented to the House of Lords recently. It was researched by five British universities and presents the way to reach their way to reach their legally binding emissions targets by 2050

We can’t wait for breakthrough technologies to deliver net-zero emissions by 2050. Instead, we can plan to respond to climate change using today’s technologies with incremental change. This will reveal many opportunities for growth but requires a public discussion about future lifestyles


This will be a lifestyle where airports will be closed, no new roads built, shipping curtailed, no eating beef or lamb, lowering of heating, no cement or steel making and being responsible for all emissions caused by importing ect. shipping.

This report does not allow for carbon credits, carbon trading or carbon capture as it is based on Zero emissions.

Is this the world we are looking at? Would this not scare even the hard core greenie.

UK airports must close



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015

So are you just completely ignoring my point on the petrochemicals?

Is the question to hard?
If so just admit it.

I'll state it once again.
Even if we have an alternate clean cheap energy source.... What are you going to do with the void created by not having a material source for petrochemicals?

Do you want grandpa to die in the hospital because we don't have hoses for his IV bag?


See, it's people like you that can't think outside the box. That hose, use bamboo. The IV bag, sustainable dried out puffer fishes. Seriously though, looking around my home I bet over 95% of is made with petrochemicals to include contents. Without oil we would be living in teepees. A lot more going on than just a fuel source, actually most of it is not even used for fuel.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

I'm really not trying to be a dick about this topic.
The proposed solutions only create problems in other areas that will need solutions as well.

There is so much more involved in replacing fossil fuels than just replacing the energy production.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I like climate change , looking forward to warmer winters in Michigan . When the temperatures start to drop and they go back to global cooling are you going to buy into that ?



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: 10uoutlaw

I don't deny for one minute that the planet is getting warmer.
The severity of man's impact is debatable and so is the severity of the warming.
Remember those hurricanes that were going to be bigger and more frequent? Nope.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

I'm really not trying to be a dick about this topic.
The proposed solutions only create problems in other areas that will need solutions as well.

There is so much more involved in replacing fossil fuels than just replacing the energy production.


Me neither but using two words to describe an enormous human concern without any real plan to address it I think is a total dick move. The Green New Deal didn't even address something simple like the waste of junk mail or the waste involved with home recycling. Even wind and solar are a waste of time and energy. These are not viable energy sources even for a small town without rolling blackouts.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Waterglass

Carbon credits are ineffective. They are a political response of those who wished to look proactive, while all the time maintaining the status quo that kept them wealthy and in power.

Also, I though the Trump rhetoric is that it is all a fake?

Perhaps the science and actual situation does not agree with the currently dominant political rhetoric?



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

It didn't bother addressing how airliners were going to fly without fuel...



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began.

Yes , of what humans produce .
Volcanoes and other natural methods are still there at 99% .



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

we are in a pause between glacial events , I would assume it to get warmer until the Glaciers start to come back . 12000 20000 year cycles maybe more . I will not be around to see it , poles may shift someday too . That might be interesting



posted on Mar, 2 2020 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

The low IQ crowd may riot and destroy a country if prompted by another countries INTEL. Watch the USA.



posted on Mar, 2 2020 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

The solution, in my opinion, is having public policy supporting research into viable alternatives to fossil fuel. Whatever the solution is it will require top-down solution design of the entire system from front to back. But we will never make any progress unless we try.


WRONG !! Goverment does not innovate or fix anything. You want something like the VA in charge of electricity ? Seriously !


originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

The Chinese are going to solve this problem. They have huge pollution problem with regards to generating electricity using coal.


Wrong !!
Again !!
Tesla, both an American (not chinese) and a private firm, NOT GOVERNMENT, is doing a GREAT job RAPIDLY building a charging network for the electric cars it designs and builds.


Get that through your head: socialism NEVER works.

edit on 2-3-2020 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join