The Environment

Well-written piece. If anyone reading this thread is a climate-skeptic, then I encourage you to at least read what a conservative and recent climate-skeptic thinks are the most convincing points.

Here's a couple excerpts:

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told CNN on Sunday: “Our climate always changes and we see those ebb and flows through time. . . . We need to always consider the impact to American industry and jobs.”

We do need to consider the impact on U.S. jobs — but that’s an argument for action rather than, as Ernst suggests, inaction. The National Climate Assessment warns that global warming could cause a 10 percent decline in gross domestic product and that the “potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century.” Iowa and other farm states will be particularly hard hit as crops wilt and livestock die.
Click to expand...
Compared with the crushing costs of climate change, the action needed to curb greenhouse-gas emissions is modest and manageable — if we act now. Jerry Taylor, president of the libertarian Niskanen Center, estimates that a carbon tax would increase average electricity rates from 17 cents to 18 cents per kilowatt-hour. The average household, he writes, would see spending on energy rise “only about $35 per month.” That’s not nothing — but it’s better than allowing climate change to continue unabated.

I’ve owned up to the danger. Why haven’t other conservatives? They are captives, first and foremost, of the fossil fuel industry, which outspent green groups 10 to 1 in lobbying on climate change from 2000 to 2016. But they are also captives of their own rigid ideology. It is a tragedy for the entire planet that the United States’ governing party is impervious to science and reason.
Click to expand...
 
:dunno
 


People like Sarah HuckaSand deserve no quarter. That they would contort and mangle reality so transparently in service of their boss shows that they should have no role in the U.S. government. Mock and ridicule and lambast them until they don't and we can put these awful people behind us.

 
commando said:
not a perfect fit for this...but this thread is the closest we have.   impressive if they can make it work
Click to expand...
Reverse osmosis has been around for decades - this is just a new material for RO. The issue with RO is cost of the membrane, so using graphene only makes sense if it can be produced more cost effectively (more cost effectively over the life of the membrane so how long it lasts matters a lot). Without more details it's hard to know if this is going to make any sort of difference.

 
RedDenver said:
Reverse osmosis has been around for decades - this is just a new material for RO. The issue with RO is cost of the membrane, so using graphene only makes sense if it can be produced more cost effectively (more cost effectively over the life of the membrane so how long it lasts matters a lot). Without more details it's hard to know if this is going to make any sort of difference.
Click to expand...




Not sure if by efficiently they mean cost or time or both.

 
Moiraine said:
Not sure if by efficiently they mean cost or time or both.
Click to expand...


It needs to be both.

For the record, I've always thought something like this is the answer to so much of the world's water issues.  California would have a completely different outlook with this.

It needs developed.  I'm glad to see people are still working on it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
so....the walls and barriers were in place but no staff to police the area and this happens.   kind of makes the argument that walls are ineffective.  and since the left is the home to the tree huggers i suspect the bubbas who did this have maga hats and fly flags on their tailgates.


 
Back
Top