Maybe he’s suggesting we behaved like salmon or something.
If we have a ton of kids, it won’t matter if a bunch of them die from climate change.
Also, we can eat our young when the food gets scarce!
See, it’s win win.
there is a chance, that the world will pull some shit together to fight climate change, because the US are already experiencing the disasters themselves. And as a world power the US could get things done on the world stage. Of course, 2020 Trump needs to be voted out of office. How likely is that?
Depends. A normal President would have the advantage of being an incumbent. If the economic numbers continue to be good, that would add significantly to that advantage. However, since trump is so divisive and only appeals to his core supporters, the calculus changes appreciably. The betting markets list him as a favorite, but primarily because he doesn’t have a defined opponent yet. Most elections boil down to each side turning out its base and how the tiny sliver of so-called independents break in a handful of key states. That said, hard as it is to believe, the election is still 18 months away so really, impossible to say at this point.
Certainly <= 35%.
Sorry about the dumbass framing (she doesn’t “destroy” anything, and you can ignore the hipster dude who pops up after a few minutes to tell you what you just saw) but this AOC clip is pretty impressive. She still sounds a bit young and college-y but she is exactly right on substance.
Not that it’ll make any difference to the GOP folks in the House, of course. Either Dems get more electoral wins or this will just be flavor text for Cockroach Herodotus to use.
Thank you for posting that, good sir. Hell yes.
Meanwhile, the Sixth Extinction continues apace. Of course, who cares about a bunch of frogs? Keep burning that beautiful, clean coal.
Some actual good news?
“Is it the silver bullet?” asked CEO Steve Oldham.
"I would never say to anybody that you want to put all your eggs in one basket - the future of the planet is very important for us all.
"But having the technology built, available, ready to go, with no harmful chemical side-effects, no land-usage, having those available - that’s a good thing.
“If or when we need them, and if you read the science that’s today - it’s available, it’s ready.”
“I think there’s a real danger that people will see this technology as a magic bullet and not cut back their carbon,” said Shakti Ramkumar, a student at the University of British Columbia (UBC), who is active in climate change protests.
This is a stupid argument.
If we actually find some way to efficiently capture carbon, then that totally could mean you don’t need to reduce your carbon footprint… Because that’s exactly what the carbon capture technology is doing.
You just need to get a net reduction. If you can achieve that purely through sequestration, then so be it.
Thank you Captain Understatement.
Agree I will take solutions anyway I can get them. I hope this is one among many we can use.
Evidently there are many older people who aren’t convinced.
Kudos to CA:
The Obama administration signed strict fuel-economy standards into law upon leaving office, meaning that the Trump administration had to develop a scientific argument to rescind those standards, showing that it would not make Americans worse off.
I’m sure Trump did some really serious “science”.
We had a good debate about it last month, but Timex the point is no, people are not afraid of nuclear power. The premise of the article is wrong. My province of 14 million people has plenty of nuclear power, and I’ve never in my life had someone tell me they’re afraid of it.
Fear is what pro-nuclear people are projecting onto others, who for the most part are simply saying that nuclear is too expensive and slow to build.
We need action on eliminating coal power, right now, on the count of one.
Lots of Americans are afraid of it and have been since the 80’s.