101–110 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BUT NUKES! All jokes aside, yes, we should invest massively in nuclear.
No we shouldn't. Nuclear waste is not and will never be solved. Nuclear meltdowns are real. Also, nuclear is more expensive than wind and solar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not majority opinion to be against data centers? One of the largest bipartisan issues of our time, something like 70% of the US population being against it in some capacity (likely even higher)? https://news.gallup.com/poll/709772/americans-oppose-data-ce...
That poll says Americans broadly oppose data centers in their local area . A poll of all Americans would likely find broad majority support for the construction of data centers in Texas; a poll isomorphic to this one would also find similarly broad opposition to the construction of apartment buildings in their local area.
Why do we put so much focus on CO2 emissions? Sure, climate change is bad and has the potential to disrupt and end the lives of many in the future. But other forms of air pollution like pm2.5 particulates in the air are already causing an estimated 5 million premature deaths per year as well as a slew of other health problems including lowering of IQ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"People who believe things you disagree with say the same thing about their beliefs!" This statement can be applied to literally any topic and it fills me with a dread that is only matched by trying to fathom the inifinite nature of the universe and time. The notion of having good faith, well intentioned debate and discourse around any conceivable subject just feels impossible most of the time.
That was my point. People disagree about this topic. I happen to agree that climate change is a real and imminent problem (though probably not, with the previous commenter, about its solution space). Pointing to public opinion about smoking in the 1950s is a conclusory argument; it doesn't get us anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s largely associated methane co-produced from oil production in the Permian. The economics of co-production means that the gas is often the cheapest in the nation and can have negative prices during large oil production swings. I believe it went nearly -$10 MMBtu this year at one point.
That would suggest if no-one purchased it, it would just be flared off. Does the negative price come about because of pathological financial conditions, or is it the case that the producers are financially penalised for flaring?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're talking about coal production that's sold to other states. Texas leads in both coal and natural gas consumption by far. Texas produces an insane amount of energy.
Yes, but I wouldn't fault Texas for producing electricity to sell to other states. And in any case, that lowers Texan per capita consumption even more given that they're not actually consuming all of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per capita the U.S. is a larger emitter than China. (Canada is even larger than the U.S.!) Let me know if you need help understanding what this means or why this matters.
Apparently I need help understanding why this matters more than simply prioritizing countries who emit the most. Do you want to reduce total emissions or do you want reduce it equitably across countries? The greenhouse effect doesn’t care how equitable the reductions are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Because you said so? So China and India can use all the fossil fuels they want, and other counties too not just them. But the West has to kowtow to Net Zero / ”Renewables” nonsense? We’re not buying it anymore. Everything has tradeoffs. Destroying the economy and letting low income and poor people freeze in the dark or melt in the sun is passé .
But doesn’t China have the largest rollout of solar in the world?
The #1 increase in world electricity demand is people rising out of poverty. China has been producing the most solar in the world and still hasn't been able to cover their own demand increase with it. Eventually that form of growth will slow down. Sustainability should always look at the second derivative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was my point. People disagree about this topic. I happen to agree that climate change is a real and imminent problem (though probably not, with the previous commenter, about its solution space). Pointing to public opinion about smoking in the 1950s is a conclusory argument; it doesn't get us anywhere.
The problem is that the two sides disagreeing are not equal.