Climate change, yep

[janice6]

6 hours ago, Moeman said:

Disagree. Rivers, air, dumps etc have been made better by .gov. Not everywhere or all the time, but do corporations always get things right? Yes, tons of money, but it is cheaper to not dump crap in the environment in the first place— overtime. Let’s see, if you are to sit in a garage with a car running, do you think one would live longer with a modern car or a 60’s car? This is like the fishery collapse. The fulcrum change can tip the whole thing  fast. 

The worst, most polluted locations in the United States, without the science and technology to clean them up, are because of the Federal Government. 

I went to many Department of Energy sites to look into pollution remediation opportunities for my company, and I found that when the government is involved, we are up against such a threat to human life, that each location is allocated $1 Billion a year  by congress simply to show that they are in good faith, looking at fixing their pollution. 

If they don't spend the money, that amount is reduced from next years allocation, so it is spent.  Few, if any solutions are available even now, the level is so extreme.  At one point in time, the most polluted location in the United States was at a Naval Gun Contractor in Minnesota, next to the Mississippi river.

The location that scared me the most was at the Hanford site by the tri-cities.

[fortyofforty]

31 minutes ago, gwalchmai said:

I truly believe that using LED bulbs and driving a fuel-efficient car saves me money by using less energy, and helps the environment a little at the same time. I believe that my neighbor has the right to make that choice for himself.

Then do it, by choice.  I did, long before the Obama Administration banned incandescent bulbs.  I was using one of the very first CFC bulbs in the country, almost as a test product, so I am no stranger to such ideas.  But who would have imagined that the government would do something like that, just a few short years ago?  The free market will cause the best products to rise up.  The heavy hand of the government should be minimized.

[fortyofforty]

33 minutes ago, gwalchmai said:

Yeah, OK, FoF, we lack your purity. ?

No.  The difference is I don't claim to be pure, unlike the resident Fascists.  ?

[janice6]

My pocket book made the change from incandescent to LED's for me.  My engineering understanding of Fluorescents, made me unable to support their use.  The only regrets I have for more efficient lighting, is that when using color paints to spray paint, the color isn't faithfully reproduced without the full spectrum of incandescent light sources.   LEDs have only 100's of Angstroms of bandwidth.  But, As I don't paint cars anymore LED's are brighter and that helps old eyes in the shop.

[gwalchmai]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

No.  The difference is I don't claim to be pure, unlike the resident Fascists.  ?

What's that mean, "fascist"? I used to know, but now I'm not sure anymore. Like "racist". It's just so hard to know anything anymore.

[fortyofforty]

1 minute ago, gwalchmai said:

What's that mean, "fascist"? I used to know, but now I'm not sure anymore. Like "racist". It's just so hard to know anything anymore.

Those who demand bigger and bigger government, to force people to do what they want, at gunpoint.  Like banning lightbulbs.  You can get the trains to run on time, though, which is good because you want to force everyone to be stuck riding on them.

[Moeman]

3 hours ago, janice6 said:

The worst, most polluted locations in the United States, without the science and technology to clean them up, are because of the Federal Government. 

I went to many Department of Energy sites to look into pollution remediation opportunities for my company, and I found that when the government is involved, we are up against such a threat to human life, that each location is allocated $1 Billion a year  by congress simply to show that they are in good faith, looking at fixing their pollution. 

If they don't spend the money, that amount is reduced from next years allocation, so it is spent.  Few, if any solutions are available even now, the level is so extreme.  At one point in time, the most polluted location in the United States was at a Naval Gun Contractor in Minnesota, next to the Mississippi river.

The location that scared me the most was at the Hanford site by the tri-cities.

So DOD? And contractors... 

[janice6]

37 minutes ago, Moeman said:

So DOD? And contractors... 

All management is controlled by the Federal Departments contractors offices.  Now the government is paying to try to clean it up but the contamination is borderline under todays technology.  The government owns and operates the facility. Managers are hired contractors, but under the auspices of the federal agency that oversees it.

The specific sites I addressed are the Department of Energy sites Nuclear weapons and Energy)

 The contractors do not have the ultimate authority, it rests with the agency/Department.

Edited November 26, 2018 by janice6

[Cougar_ml]

A little off track, but reading this made me wonder something.

 

So burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Decayed plant matter is the primary source of fossil fuels.

Plants pull carbon out of the air to use to create more plant.

So in order for all these plants to have created all that fossil fuel, it means that every bit of that carbon that is in the fuel was once in the air to begin with.  It might not be the best thing for humans and animals, but I'm pretty sure there will still be plenty of plants and critters around long after we kill ourselves off from all of this "climate change"

 

Honestly, the earth doesn't care, what we're destroying is ourselves, not the planet.

 

And no, back to our regularly scheduled bickering program...

[fortyofforty]

No civilization can survive without spreading.  Mars, here we come!

[Huaco Kid]

3 hours ago, Cougar_ml said:

Honestly, the earth doesn't care, what we're destroying is ourselves, not the planet.

Even if the climate stays exactly as it is now,  we'll still pollute the planet so badly that it can't sustain life.

We're a virus that is killing it's host.

[racerford]

44 minutes ago, Huaco Kid said:

Even if the climate stays exactly as it is now,  we'll still pollute the planet so badly that it can't sustain life.

We're a virus that is killing it's host.

You underestimate life. It adapts. There is nothing that humans can do (short of a physics experiment gone awry that creates a black hole, or antimatter explosion) that will kill all life on earth. Those types of changes are done by time and physics.