https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/stuff-you-need-to-know/news/?message=50612
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sure thing, make me banker and I will create the rules. You don't seem to understand how artificial the system is, aand it has warped costs to further a certain agenda.
You don’t seem to understand that our society can’t function without a monetary system. Unless you think everyone can survive by producing their own food and goods or straight barter.
I do understand that living your life bound by these rules has closed you mind.
You might want to add tautology to your list of logical fallacies that you like to throw around.
In the last 30 years the internet/wireless have fundamentally changed society. Entire industries have been wiped out (video rental, camera film) and many others have been forced to adapt (journalism). This was mostly financed by private money and faced little opposition from people who would have preferred the status quo. IOW, our society *will* embrace radical change when the change is economically viable. When it comes to CO2 policy the opposition stems entirely from the fact that there are no economically viable options that would make any difference. People who think the opposition is based on "resistance to change" or "big oil lobbies" are inventing conspiracy theories to avoid acknowledging the hard economic reality. If CO2 free options were economically viable they would be embraced just like the Internet was embraced.
Little oil companies, you know such as Exxon-Mobil have been planning to adapt to renewable energy for some time now.
Yep. As I said: if CO2 free sources were economically viable there would be a mad rush to adopt them without requiring government subsidies and no proponent of the status quo could stop them. But that is not happening because (an only because) there are no real alternatives to fossil fuels at this time.
"It's a new milestone: Europe got more of its power from solar, wind and biomass than coal last year.
ROTFL. Renewable boosters are so desperate to claim progress that they engage in outright deception.The stats in the article refer to nameplate capacity which means nothing since renewables don't produce all of the time and sometimes when they produce their power cannot be used. When you look at actual energy production you see a very different picture:http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Production_of_primary_energy,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.pngA mere 4% of european energy production comes from solar or wind despite the massive investment.But go ahead - live in your world of delusions. The people behind the scenes that are actually responsible for keeping the lights on will quitely keep those fossil fuel plants running because those people know that renewables are a joke because it is their job to know.
Closed it to what? How would your brave new world function?
When you look at actual energy production you see a very different picture:
I wouldn't reward those who exploit the worlds resources and leave a mess for future generations. That is central to the current model, and any minor attempt to mitigate it (e.g. carbon tax, resource extraction tax) is met with hostility by those with entrenched position in the current system and supported by their ignorant followers.
The graph you linked to showed renewable producing 26.7%, and coal producing 18.9%. That seems exactly in line with the previous statement, what are you trying to say?
Look at the breakdown for renewables. Renewables includes a lot of biomass which is not really CO2 emission free. It status depends on the assumption that CO2 emissions required to harvest the biomass are insignificant and that burned biomass will be replaced faster than it is burned. This is not necessarily true. Only ~15% is wind or solar. That makes solar/wind a mere 4% of the total yet the headline makes it sound like wind/solar are significant players.