Author Topic: Environmental issues  (Read 108156 times)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Environmental issues, Minimg
« Reply #351 on: March 22, 2021, 02:19:12 PM »
Does anyone remember Kevin McHale from back when tall white guys could play good basketball?  Or remember the "Iron Range" of Minnesota.  Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) made a name for themselves some time ago when they invented sandpaper.  The Great Lakes allowed the transport of MN iron to Pittsburgh steel plants.   Democrats have been trying to ban all that ever since.  McHale narrates the following 30 second commercial in support of his home town economy, link below.  [Same home town Bob Zimmerman left 100 million albums ago.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dylan]

Interestingly, Minnesota's 8th congressional district (northern MN) flipped recently from forever blue to red, redder and very bright red, which has made the entire state more competitive.  Why? 

Like liberals everywhere, MN libs want their iphones, Teslas, catalytic convers, wind turbines, ebikes and so on, but they want them made out of thin air, not from digging rare earth elements out of the ground anywhere near home.  The economy of the 'iron range' relies on mining.  Take away industry and all young people, all workers eventually leave, which is a common problem in small town America.   The ground in question is loaded with treasures but when you ban the extraction here, it happens in China or Africa instead, under far worse conditions with far more environmental damage. 

John Hinderaker who heads up MN based Center for the American Experiment has been attacking liberal lunacy in MN with research, advocacy and putting the information out there on billboards and commercials.  Spend 30 seconds and see their latest product:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/03/the-harm-done-by-environmentalists.php
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUd3SYeuPC4&t=30s

We also need to transition from just talking amongst ourselves to reachout.


« Last Edit: March 22, 2021, 02:27:05 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20047
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues, Minimg
« Reply #352 on: March 22, 2021, 02:36:13 PM »
The problem is, many on the left have a serious inability to grasp cause and effect.


Does anyone remember Kevin McHale from back when tall white guys could play good basketball?  Or remember the "Iron Range" of Minnesota.  Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) made a name for themselves some time ago when they invented sandpaper.  The Great Lakes allowed the transport of MN iron to Pittsburgh steel plants.   Democrats have been trying to ban all that ever since.  McHale narrates the following 30 second commercial in support of his home town economy, link below.  [Same home town Bob Zimmerman left 100 million albums ago.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dylan]

Interestingly, Minnesota's 8th congressional district (northern MN) flipped recently from forever blue to red, redder and very bright red, which has made the entire state more competitive.  Why? 

Like liberals everywhere, MN libs want their iphones, Teslas, catalytic convers, wind turbines, ebikes and so on, but they want them made out of thin air, not from digging rare earth elements out of the ground anywhere near home.  The economy of the 'iron range' relies on mining.  Take away industry and all young people, all workers eventually leave, which is a common problem in small town America.   The ground in question is loaded with treasures but when you ban the extraction here, it happens in China or Africa instead, under far worse conditions with far more environmental damage. 

John Hinderaker who heads up MN based Center for the American Experiment has been attacking liberal lunacy in MN with research, advocacy and putting the information out there on billboards and commercials.  Spend 30 seconds and see their latest product:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/03/the-harm-done-by-environmentalists.php
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUd3SYeuPC4&t=30s

We also need to transition from just talking amongst ourselves to reachout.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20047
    • View Profile
Re: CA Waterboard on keeping trash out of the waterways
« Reply #353 on: March 31, 2021, 11:14:18 PM »
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/070/352/138/original/02d725d625a8738f.png



https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/03/22/adriana-cohen-bay-states-plastic-bag-ban-dangerous-amid-covid-19-pandemic/amp/



https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/publications_forms/publications/factsheets/docs/trash_fs.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2sO49UXQ2XigDh8sX9TYXk9Ftr4DL5CfAXWERyKb8cQPYeNBDprxRmCuc


http://ace.mu.nu/archives/covid%2020210104%2001.jpg





Keeping the waterways clean is a good thing. Trying to ban everything that might be used to litter isn’t the correct approach. I would be willing to bet that a lot of the “vibrant diversity” California welcomes is disposing of trash in the same ways commonly done back in their sh*thole countries. But that truth is unpalatable, so virtue signaling via plastic bag and drinking straw bans will have to suffice.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55124
    • View Profile
WSJ: Biden's end run of Congress and the Constitution
« Reply #354 on: April 23, 2021, 03:32:08 AM »
READ FOR COMPREHENSION




Was President Biden trying to impress China’s Xi Jinping at Thursday’s climate pep rally by committing to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by half below 2005 levels by 2030? His pledge tees up sweeping new government controls over the economy of the kind you might see in one of Mr. Xi’s five-year plans. Mr. Biden now has a 10-year version of central economic planning.

Mr. Biden’s virtual world summit was intended to coax China and other emerging countries to make more aggressive emissions reductions. The U.S. accounts for less than 15% of global CO2 emissions, Mr. Biden told world leaders. Emissions in the U.S. and Europe have been falling since 2005 as natural gas and renewables have replaced coal power.

But rising emissions from China have swamped these declines. At the Paris climate summit in 2015, China committed only to begin reducing emissions in 2030, and it has continued to build coal plants and expand industrial production. China’s CO2 emissions increased by more between 2015 and 2018 than the U.K.’s total emissions in 2018 (see nearby chart).

All of the CO2 commitments made in Paris, including Barack Obama’s to reduce U.S. emissions by 26% to 28%, would reduce the Earth’s temperature increase by a mere 0.17 degree Celsius by 2100—not even close to the 1.5 degrees that is supposedly needed to head off doomsday. Yet Mr. Biden now wants to double down on Mr. Obama’s futile climate gesture.


What would the U.S. have to do to achieve Mr. Biden’s new emissions pledge? Start with some perspective. The Obama regulatory fusillade got the U.S. only about halfway to his Paris pledge—and most of the reductions during his Presidency were from natural gas displacing coal in power due to market forces.

Amid last year’s Covid-19 lockdowns, greenhouse gas emissions fell to about 21% below 2005 levels. In other words, even with the economy shut down and a large share of the population stuck at home, the U.S. was less than halfway to Mr. Biden’s goal.


Some green groups have done their own back-of-the envelope analysis of what it would take to achieve Mr. Biden’s 10-year plan. Take a recent Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) report that argues for a “strong whole-of-government approach.” This includes eliminating new gas-powered cars by 2035, presumably by ramping up corporate average fuel economy (Cafe) standards. Mr. Biden has also proposed sweetening federal tax credits for buying electric cars—currently $7,500—but soon consumers will have no choice but to buy them when their gas vehicles expire.

The Biden goal will require the electric grid to be totally rebuilt in 10 years. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. will also have to double its share of carbon-free power to 80% from 40% today—half of which is now provided by nuclear—to have any hope of achieving Mr. Biden’s pledge.

All coal plants would have to shut down, and natural gas plants would be phased into obsolescence. Wind and solar energy would have to increase six to seven fold. The Obama Clean Power Plan, which the Supreme Court blocked in 2016, looks modest by comparison. It sought to reduce CO2 power emissions by 32%. Most homes would also have to be electrified. So if you like your gas stove, you won’t be able to keep it. Farmers would also have to adopt “climate-smart agriculture and forestry,” EDF says.

***
Unlike Mr. Xi, the U.S. President doesn’t have legal authority to decree sweeping emissions reductions across the economy. But liberals argue that Section 115 of the Clean Air Act, titled “International Air Pollution,” allows the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country.” The catch is that EPA can only do so if there is regulatory “reciprocity” among other nations.

Mr. Biden is essentially doing an end-run around the Constitution, which requires approval by two-thirds of the Senate for the President to enter a treaty. The emissions reductions that foreign leaders pledged on Thursday aren’t legally binding, but Mr. Biden intends to use regulation to bind Americans.


Businesses will be conscripted as foot soldiers in the progressive war on fossil fuels. Mercenaries like Google, Apple and Microsoft have already enlisted. America’s founders believed that the Constitution’s separation of powers would safeguard individual liberty, but this assumes Congress guards its power.

Mr. Biden will face no resistance to his regulatory overreach from Democrats in Congress. They will happily finance his 10-year plan to remake the economy, starting with his $2.3 trillion much-more-than-infrastructure proposal that is the Green New Deal in disguise.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Re: EPA going after HFCs
« Reply #356 on: May 03, 2021, 02:08:51 PM »
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/3/epa-propose-phasing-out-greenhouse-gases-used-refr/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=eAIihd4E%2F%2BRfYBULPBzspZAcU9RdcbCH%2F5gxpZvzhWWgzxaPJZ63RHoLA%2FSaIub8&bt_ts=1620049352651

That's okay with me, IF:
a) If the science behind it is real, and
b) if the cost of the change is bearable.

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/f-gas/alternatives_en

One of the main alternatives (R32) is also an HFC but cleaner.

I'm not aware of any way to dispose of a refrigerator in the US without having to pay a fee for someone to capture the refrigerant.

It would be a shame of HFC alternatives were less efficient causing AC etc. to run more using more electricity and emitting more greenhouse gases.

Too bad that driving a far Left political agenda is the main skill of the people we need to trust at EPA today.  Not like when my cousin was hired as Director, PhD Math, Stanford.  They did real analytics back then.

« Last Edit: May 03, 2021, 02:43:28 PM by DougMacG »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #358 on: May 05, 2021, 07:24:24 AM »
not mentioned oddly is whether the increase is in F or C scale
but doing quick search
implies it is in F scale

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #359 on: May 05, 2021, 08:33:23 PM »
not mentioned oddly is whether the increase is in F or C scale
but doing quick search
implies it is in F scale

If it's an F scale it would have one flat.    :wink:

Yes it is F scale, one degree Fahrenheit, not a scale scientists use, no doubt within the margin of error in a very imperfect series of measurements.  What does Nassim Taleb call it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fooled_by_Randomness

The AP story quotes Michael Mann, inventor of the fully discredited hockey stick graph, exposed in climategate, suing Mark Steyn. 
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/30/update-on-michael-mann-v-mark-steyn-litigation/ 
Hard to get at the truth that way.  He's still altering temps from 100 years ago to fit his narrative.  Source:  Steyn motion.