421–430 of 612 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The person he was responding to is wrong, as you might have discovered had you actually tried to provide information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Up to the 2008 election the Republican party platform called for reducing fossil fuel use, establishing a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change, a long term tax credit for renewable energy (with specific mentions of solar and wind), more recycling, and making consumer products more energy efficient. They wanted to aggressively support technological advances to reduce the dependence o…
You’re not sure? In a word: Greed. In two words: Crony Capitalism. The spend on “non-renewable“ energy is significant to the domestic economy. In 2023 (most recent year I could find), consumer spend on energy in the US was $1.6T ( https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/us-ener... ) with at least 82% of that being fossil fuels - the remainder being “renewables” and nuclear energy ( https://www.eia.gov/to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current US “leadership” is working as hard as it can to prevent any progress and to even dismantle some of the gains we have made. Meanwhile, China has made the obvious realization that independence from oil and gas is economically, geopolitically, and environmentally beneficial.
China's betting on renewables while Republicans are betting on nuclear fusion and gutting the NRC.
However had, there is one thing working for China: decision-making steps.
I don't have any illusion about the sinomarxist party and I don't suggest that their model - which is a dictatorship, just like the USA has transitioned into now too under an orange-painted TechBro minion - replaces democractic processes. But you do have to ask yourself what the EU is doing here, other than failing in epic ways. You can not assume that current wealth will be retained in the future; and while "green energy" is great, what we in reality see right now is simply price increases. That ultimately means wealth is deducted from a majority, and only a very few profit from this. That is a design-by-failure process now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re not sure? In a word: Greed. In two words: Crony Capitalism. The spend on “non-renewable“ energy is significant to the domestic economy. In 2023 (most recent year I could find), consumer spend on energy in the US was $1.6T ( https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/us-ener... ) with at least 82% of that being fossil fuels - the remainder being “renewables” and nuclear energy ( https://www.eia.gov/to…
That was all true long before 2008 so doesn't explain why the Republican platform changed nearly 180 degrees on this between 2008 and 2012.
Wouldn't it be better to just go with nuclear? Isn't this a gigantic waste of space and overhead to maintain it? And how "renewable" are the materials used to produce these?
How renewable is uranium?
In the U.S. and EU, if the government takes your land, they have to reimburse you for it, and you can fight them every step of the way. In China, the government can take your land and if you complain, you can spend the rest of your life in a labor camp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another 30 second search would show you that their oil is not readily available and is unproven. Otherwise Denmark would already be an even wealthier petrostate like Norway.
OK, so...there is oil in Greenland, and your snarky response was actually completely incorrect. Got it.
Regardless, the US isn’t taking over Greenland for its oil. That is just ridiculous and there would be far easier targets to go after if that was the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would love to see photos like these from Australia too one day. You may never see them. Not because we aren't adding renewables, but because South Australia was at about 80% renewable last year (average, not peak) so if you were going to get those sort of pictures anywhere in Australia, you would be getting them from SA now. You probably don't see them because while the countries are about the same size in land a…
This is true, and I'm a big fan of SA leading the charge, having grown up there. However, we could also build out more green energy technology to become a large energy exporter. (You could argue we are kind of that now, with the amount of coal we export.) Especially given we have strong but complicated geopolitical ties to both China and the USA, it feels like guaranteeing our own energy sovereignty, plus gaining the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another 30 second search would show you that their oil is not readily available and is unproven. Otherwise Denmark would already be an even wealthier petrostate like Norway.
> "Denmark would already be an even wealthier petrostate" Denmark does not (since 2009) control Greenland's minerals, nor take revenues from resource extraction[0,1]; and Greenland's democratic government has in fact totally banned oil exploration[2]. [0] https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-neglect-greenland-min... ( "In 2009, Denmark handed Greenland's inhabitants control of their natural resources..." ) [1] http…