Today, it is humans who are the asteroid

The reality edgar, is, once the oceans are dead and done, there won't be any mankind left. The resources of the oceans are more than just the fish. Various organisms and plant species are in there. They contribute to feeding seals and penguins and plenty of birds. Those creatures are part of the food chain.

Even now, as warming waters are destroying the futures of various (as in all) fish, those who rely on them are being pushed to their own mortal ending. At some point in time, every human will be part of this annihilation. Humans are much more susceptible to an early demise of species existence than several other land rovers.

Isn't it about time we supposedly intelligent humans got our act together and made an effort to heal the wounds of the lands, seas and skies which we have collectively destroyed?

Which is why I wish the bastards could be made to drink all that water. They delay finding solutions until the worst ones are all they have left.

I think it is very unlikely that the oceans will ever be dead and gone.

That, of course, doesn't mean that they cannot be degraded to a point where massive extinctions are a result...including, perhaps, humans.

This also doesn't mean that humans should not do what they can to preserve the oceans, but short of blowing the earth to bits, or finding a way to strip it of its protective magnetic field, humans can't destroy it or all life.

There have been massive cataclysmic events in the past and life on earth still thrives.

I've no problem with people who are vitally concerned about the continuing existence of the human species. I would hate to see us extinguish ourselves but there seems to be a need in some quarters to gild the lilly and make "Climate Change" about preserving Mother Earth and all her children. I would think that preserving humanity would be enough for them.

You mean the Jappos who your hero FDR viewed with an intense racist animus?

How in the world do you fashion such a sentence? Isn't that a little like "Are you still beating your wife" style question?

He's just a racist crapmonger. Pay it no mind.

No, not at all.

Edgar wants to force THEM to drink the water they are polluting. Who are THEM? According to his posts, the Japanese.

I've no use for "crap," let alone making money on it.

You throw around "racist" like confetti.

Tell me how you know I am a racist.

You are a sour old man who resents the fact that others have done better in life than you and is always looking for a political excuse for your failures.

You pay me mind all the time.

Meanwhile, returning to topic,

Why Alaska's ridiculous summer should scare you

So how do we make up the shortfall in what renewables and conservation can provide, and meet the power needs of the American people?

a) Coal?

b) Nuclear?

c) Fracking?

d) Socialist-style rolling blackouts?

Hint: It's not going to be "D".

That sucks. They should strip out the tritium and sell it to the US Department of Defense (or to Israel/India/France/the UK) instead of using it to poison the world.



Note that fbclid=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx means "Facebook click ID".

Links work just fine if you strip out the code that allows Facebook to track who is clicking whose links.

Quite often links will work just fine if you strip out the question mark and everything after it. But even in the cases where a link needs some of the code after the question mark, they certainly don't need the Facebook tracking code.

It isn't that difficult. You let gas prices rise and people drive less. When we get rid of fracking the free market will sort out the rest.

I would like to see a big investment in public transportation.

The American people are not going to make do with less.

It's going to be, coal, nuclear, or fracking.

I don't care which it is, but it's going to be at least one of the three.

When gas prices go up, people tend to drive fewer miles and buy smaller cars.

This is not just economics 101, it is also pretty easy to show with data.

We aren't going to have skyrocketing electricity rates. We're going to keep producing enough electricity to meet the needs of the American people.

So. Coal, fracking, or nuclear?

I got into this scuffle with you because you are pushing an absolute ideology. I tend to push back on absolutism. I am not definitively opposed to fracking. However, fracking does have costs that need to be considered.

I agree with you that that fossil fuels are going to be a part of the mix. It doesn't have to be fracking. There is oil and natural gas without fracking. And there are a lot other things as well.

Our energy needs are going to be met by a balance. Our energy policy should match the true costs of each source.

There are free market solutions. When you raise the price of energy, people use less of it. When you raise the price of more harmful energy, people move to the more environmentally friendly sources of energy.

Which leads me to a rant.... (maybe this should be a different thread).

Coal is fine with me.

I'd personally prefer nuclear done right. But if it's coal, then it's coal.

I need to take a 10 minute train ride from near my house, to an activity with my daughter. This costs me $2.40 for each person each way. For me and my daughter this is $9.60 round trip.

This is a 4 minute car ride that costs me about $1 in gas. Even counting wear and tear on my car, the round trip costs about $3 (given the normal rate).

Why would I ever take public transportation?

If people are serious about climate change, we need to raise the cost of driving significantly and reduce the cost of public transportation. The current economics of public transportation are backwards.

Are you saying that the solution is to focus on one energy source and ignore everything else?

You seem to be avoiding any sense of balance.

I'm saying that we have only three real options for making up the shortfall in what can be achieved by renewables and conservation.

You mentioned fossil fuels and you excluded fracking. That means coal.

Edit: You must have edited and expanded your post. My reply to that post is addressing your original much shorter reply. I'll have to draft a new reply to the longer version of your post.