• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Solutions to climate change

What solution do you have for climate change?

  • the green new deal

    Votes: 14 23.0%

  • I don't support the green new deal but I think there needs to be a solution

    Votes: 5 8.2%

  • nuclear power

    Votes: 8 13.1%

  • I don't see this as an issue

    Votes: 31 50.8%

  • not sure

    Votes: 3 4.9%
  • Total voters
    61
chuckiechan said:
We would need to “end” India and China. But they may have something to say about that.

The middle classes are waking up to the threat of “climate tyranny” as a way to take more political control. Why should the climate billionaires fly into Davos and preach to us from the wings of their private jets, when Gordon the Welder can’t make enough to put food on his table?
Click to expand...

Do you think physics changes based on alleged hypocrisy of Al Gore?
 
Deuce said:
By pushing people towards renewables. We went over this already.
Click to expand...
The problem is that renewables can only support a small portion of the worlds energy demands and the major polluters are not onboard with it.

The only thing you accomplish is putting in place a regressive tax that hurts lower incomes and give a country a competetive edge in the global economy.

The one thing its not going to do is change global warming or make it go away.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
The solution to climate change is to be honest and realize that this earth long before the industrial revolution experienced major climate changes throughout millions of years.

To find fossils of lush plant life that once was in abundance in what is now called the Sahara desert is a good place to start.

Or what about Woolly Mammoths in recent years that were found in Siberia that were preserved in ice. And in their bellies they found undigested buttercups. Buttercups bloom from April to August. Obviously there was a catastrophic weather phenomenon that occurred that put them in the deep freeze millions of years before the first combustible engine was created.

And all this talk of rising sea levels as something new....well it isn't. It's been happening since ancient times. In ancient times to build major cities on coastlines was common back then as boats whether for fishing for the bounty of the sea or commerce. In recent years there have been some exciting ancient city discoveries found on the ocean floor. Places like India, Egypt, Italy, Greece that once were part of the coastline. And oh shock all this occurred thousands of years before coal power plants.

The earth is going to do what it wants to do no matter what you think you can do to stop it. Could NYC and San Fran someday disappear on the ocean floor? Yes and there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop it. Could another Ice Age visit the Midwest? Yes and there is nothing you can do about it. And some day the Sahara Desert may bloom again.

My suggestion is enjoy your life while you are here and use it to make a difference for good and realize what you can and can not change.
 
I'm all for nuclear...as soon as they figure out how to neutralize the waste. Until then there are many renewable sources available. It only takes the will to do it.
 
vesper said:
The solution to climate change is to be honest and realize that this earth long before the industrial revolution experienced major climate changes throughout millions of years.

To find fossils of lush plant life that once was in abundance in what is now called the Sahara desert is a good place to start.

Or what about Woolly Mammoths in recent years that were found in Siberia that were preserved in ice. And in their bellies they found undigested buttercups. Buttercups bloom from April to August. Obviously there was a catastrophic weather phenomenon that occurred that put them in the deep freeze millions of years before the first combustible engine was created.

And all this talk of rising sea levels as something new....well it isn't. It's been happening since ancient times. In ancient times to build major cities on coastlines was common back then as boats whether for fishing for the bounty of the sea or commerce. In recent years there have been some exciting ancient city discoveries found on the ocean floor. Places like India, Egypt, Italy, Greece that once were part of the coastline. And oh shock all this occurred thousands of years before coal power plants.

The earth is going to do what it wants to do no matter what you think you can do to stop it. Could NYC and San Fran someday disappear on the ocean floor? Yes and there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop it. Could another Ice Age visit the Midwest? Yes and there is nothing you can do about it. And some day the Sahara Desert may bloom again.

My suggestion is enjoy your life while you are here and use it to make a difference for good and realize what you can and can not change.
Click to expand...

Oh look.

Someone believes scientists. Sometimes.
 
trouble13 said:
The problem is that renewables can only support a small portion of the worlds energy demands and the major polluters are not onboard with it.
Click to expand...
"Renewable energy doesn't eliminate every single source of carbon emissions."

Stunning revelation. Yeah, we know.

The only thing you accomplish is putting in place a regressive tax that hurts lower incomes and give a country a competetive edge in the global economy.
Click to expand...
False. Emissions are lowered.

The one thing its not going to do is change global warming or make it go away.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hang on. Let's clarify. You seem to be under the impression that the argument is "tax carbon and every problem related to climate change will be solved all at once."
Is that your perception of the discussion?
 
Deuce said:
"Renewable energy doesn't eliminate every single source of carbon emissions."

Stunning revelation. Yeah, we know.


False. Emissions are lowered.



Hang on. Let's clarify. You seem to be under the impression that the argument is "tax carbon and every problem related to climate change will be solved all at once."
Is that your perception of the discussion?
Click to expand...
On the first page of this thread it was suggested that a carbon tax is a solution to global warming, to which i in return asked how.

I will grant you that increasing the costs of using carbons will reduce their use to some degree but if the situation is as dire as the alarmists are claiming, it woud not reduce it enough to have a significant impact.

It seems to me that a carbon tax is more about punishing people than it is about solving the alleged crisis.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
The best Solution to climate change is to stop giving government grants to various enthusiastic climate scientist.
It's almost like a cottage industry.
 
trouble13 said:
On the first page of this thread it was suggested that a carbon tax is a solution to global warming, to which i in return asked how.

I will grant you that increasing the costs of using carbons will reduce their use to some degree but if the situation is as dire as the alarmists are claiming, it woud not reduce it enough to have a significant impact.

It seems to me that a carbon tax is more about punishing people than it is about solving the alleged crisis.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, let me help you out by fixing your interpretation: it's a part of the solution.
 
slick said:
The best Solution to climate change is to stop giving government grants to various enthusiastic climate scientist.
It's almost like a cottage industry.
Click to expand...

Yes, "less science" sure seems like the solution to things.
 
Deuce said:
Well, let me help you out by fixing your interpretation: it's a part of the solution.
Click to expand...
How much carbon emissions do you think a carbon tax would reduce and how much time do you think it extends the doomsday clock?

Using some of the most liberal estimates i have seen at best it would only prolong the eventual point of inhabitable conditions by 2 or 3 years.

Its not a solution. Its a means to punish people for using a form of energy that is unavoidable for them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Add umbrella as an option.
 
bongsaway said:
I'm all for nuclear...as soon as they figure out how to neutralize the waste. Until then there are many renewable sources available. It only takes the will to do it.
Click to expand...

Nuclear , specifically , Molten Salt reactor technology has to be part of the solution. It is a crying shame that this energy source was not developed decades ago. If only!-We would have a cleaner, safer world today,

"Officially, the program was cancelled because:

The political and technical support for the program in the United States was too thin geographically. Within the United States the technology was well understood only in Oak Ridge.[5]
The MSR program was in competition with the fast breeder program at the time, which got an early start and had copious government development funds with contracts that benefited many parts of the country. When the MSR development program had progressed far enough to justify an expanded program leading to commercial development, the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) could not justify the diversion of substantial funds from the LMFBR to a competing program.[5]....
The LFTR design was strongly supported by Alvin Weinberg, who patented the light-water reactor and was a director of the U.S.'s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In 2016 Nobel prize winning physicist Carlo Rubbia, former Director General of CERN, claimed that one of the main reasons why research was cut is that thorium is difficult to turn into a nuclear weapon.[16]"


Molten salt reactor - Wikipedia
 
Masterhawk said:
The issue of climate change has become a major political issue. Most scientists agree that global warming is real and manmade. Despite this several Americans believe that global warming is a myth.

As a solution to global warming, Alexandria Cortez proposed the green new deal. This bill was introduced into the house under HR 109. It failed terribly in the senate with the republicans voting against it and the democrats simply voting present.

Some feel that the push for green energy leaves out one potential candidate: nuclear power. Unlike wind and solar which take up lots of land and can sometimes be unreliable (wind and sun come and go), nuclear energy is every bit as reliable as fossil fuels.

Several environmentalists are against nuclear energy of fear of nuclear meltdowns and storing waste. When nuclear power first made its debut, the public welcomed it. However, in response to the disasters of three mile island, Cherynobyl, and Fukushima, the push for nuclear power ended.

It is worth noting though that the Three Mile Island disaster happened before the risks of nuclear energy were known and it was due to a few errors. Also, nobody died from the disaster. The Cherynobyl nuclear disaster was the deadliest in history with 64 deaths attributed to it and was the disaster which really turned the public against nuclear energy. The Fukushima disaster happened due to an earthquake. Onl one death was attributed to it and it didn't happen till many years later. Each of these disasters were from generation II reactors. Generation III and IV reactors use less uranium to produce the same output. In doing so, it reduces the ramifications of a nuclear meltdown.
Click to expand...

What the left doesn't understand is that there is no solution. Global temperatures warm no matter what we do. China is cheating big time. We can't reign in what other countries do and we can't spend trillions upon trillions of dollars to fight a losing battle.
 
Moderate Right said:
What the left doesn't understand is that there is no solution. Global temperatures warm no matter what we do. China is cheating big time. We can't reign in what other countries do and we can't spend trillions upon trillions of dollars to fight a losing battle.
Click to expand...

The battle we are losing is not only the battle to reign in climate change but also the battle to achieve technological advancement. It is quite insane that the U.S. continues to use coal for energy generation when there are alternatives. It is insane that we continue to poison ourselves with the affects of oil drilling, coal mining and nuclear waste when there are alternatives. It is insane that we continue to move goods long distances in noxious, polluting fuel inefficient trucks- when there can be alternatives.

To help speed up research, it is essential to move from bilateral to multilateral cooperation, said Chen Kun from the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. “It is the first time China has the opportunity to share knowledge with India, Indonesia and Turkey on this technology.”

Indonesia is considering building its first nuclear power plant with molten salt reactor design, said Bob Soelaiman Effendi from Indonesia Thorium Energy Community. “For a developing country like Indonesia, a molten salt reactor’s higher efficiency in electricity generation makes it more economical and affordable than fossil-fuel power plants.”


17 countries cooperating on Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor Design and development – NextBigFuture.com
 
trouble13 said:
How much carbon emissions do you think a carbon tax would reduce and how much time do you think it extends the doomsday clock?

Using some of the most liberal estimates i have seen at best it would only prolong the eventual point of inhabitable conditions by 2 or 3 years.

Its not a solution. Its a means to punish people for using a form of energy that is unavoidable for them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Can you show me these estimates
 
Moderate Right said:
What the left doesn't understand is that there is no solution. Global temperatures warm no matter what we do. China is cheating big time. We can't reign in what other countries do and we can't spend trillions upon trillions of dollars to fight a losing battle.
Click to expand...

So make China go along with it.
 
The first step is to address the actual problem, which is energy, not CO2.
We do not have enough naturally stored hydrocarbons, to allow all of the worlds current
population to sustain a first world lifestyle for more than a few decades at best.
We need a way to allow everyone alive to have enough energy available to achieve a first world lifestyle,
if they choose to, anything less leads to energy haves and have not's.
I think everyone can agree that as we exploit our natural hydrocarbon reserves, the remainder will be more expensive
and more difficult to extract. (I.E. the price of oil will continue to rise).
Solar and wind have great possibilities, but poor capabilities, the energy is there, but not
when, and in the quantities needed. Energy storage is necessary to make ether wind or solar effective.
The storage will need to be able to move the energy seasonally, so Fall surplus to winter heating,
or Spring surplus to summer cooling.
I see a market driven solution that will allow a sustainable carbon neutral path forward.
As the price of oil increases, the refineries will look at the profit from buying and refining oil, compared
to making finished fuel products from Hydrogen from water, Carbon from atmospheric CO2, and electricity.
The current published technology has the efficiency of making fuels from scratch at between 60 and 80%,
this equates out to oil priced between $75 and $97 a barrel.
The fuels would when burned add ZERO net carbon to the atmosphere, as the carbon would have been pulled from the
atmosphere to make the fuel.
This path would allow a slower transition to more efficient vehicles, while radically reducing current emissions.
It would also take care of the upcoming storage problem from surplus wind and solar power.
People choose new ways of doing things, because the new ways are better than before, in ways that work for them.
Not the abstract ideas of what is good for the planet, but what helps my family now!
They will buy the carbon neutral fuel at the pump, because it will be the cheapest fuel that will get the job done.
Whatever country who develops the best process can license it around the world, but I suspect a good process would be copied quickly.
Nature choose hydrocarbons are the best way to store energy, we could do far worse than following how nature did something!
 
Feel free to answer my questions. I don't ask this in a snarky way. But these questions do make me question certain assumptions. Especially since the "climate models" have been so wrong.

Do the Greenland ice cores tell a factual story? Are they correct? They seem to contradict the manmade global warming idea.

Could it be that the "solar minimum" is now affecting climate?

The Cern "cloud experiment" did in fact show that cosmic radiation hitting the earth produces more clouds. More clouds, cooler temps.

Do orbits and our position in space have any affect on climate?

Is higher CO2 actually good for plants?
 
longview said:
The first step is to address the actual problem, which is energy, not CO2.
We do not have enough naturally stored hydrocarbons, to allow all of the worlds current
population to sustain a first world lifestyle for more than a few decades at best.
We need a way to allow everyone alive to have enough energy available to achieve a first world lifestyle,
if they choose to, anything less leads to energy haves and have not's.
I think everyone can agree that as we exploit our natural hydrocarbon reserves, the remainder will be more expensive
and more difficult to extract. (I.E. the price of oil will continue to rise).
Solar and wind have great possibilities, but poor capabilities, the energy is there, but not
when, and in the quantities needed. Energy storage is necessary to make ether wind or solar effective.
The storage will need to be able to move the energy seasonally, so Fall surplus to winter heating,
or Spring surplus to summer cooling.
I see a market driven solution that will allow a sustainable carbon neutral path forward.
As the price of oil increases, the refineries will look at the profit from buying and refining oil, compared
to making finished fuel products from Hydrogen from water, Carbon from atmospheric CO2, and electricity.
The current published technology has the efficiency of making fuels from scratch at between 60 and 80%,
this equates out to oil priced between $75 and $97 a barrel.
The fuels would when burned add ZERO net carbon to the atmosphere, as the carbon would have been pulled from the
atmosphere to make the fuel.
This path would allow a slower transition to more efficient vehicles, while radically reducing current emissions.
It would also take care of the upcoming storage problem from surplus wind and solar power.
People choose new ways of doing things, because the new ways are better than before, in ways that work for them.
Not the abstract ideas of what is good for the planet, but what helps my family now!
They will buy the carbon neutral fuel at the pump, because it will be the cheapest fuel that will get the job done.
Whatever country who develops the best process can license it around the world, but I suspect a good process would be copied quickly.
Nature choose hydrocarbons are the best way to store energy, we could do far worse than following how nature did something!
Click to expand...

And the purpose of a carbon tax is, in part, to accurately price carbon based fuels which do a great deal of damage to the planet in addition to climate change.
 
Cassandra said:
And the purpose of a carbon tax is, in part, to accurately price carbon based fuels which do a great deal of damage to the planet in addition to climate change.
Click to expand...
But a carbon tax would not be a global solution, but only an economic disadvantage to those countries who implemented it.
Artificially forcing a commodity to a higher price through taxation, only effects local market forces.
For the solution to work, the man made fuels would have to be the naturally lowest price fuel.
 
Cassandra said:
The battle we are losing is not only the battle to reign in climate change but also the battle to achieve technological advancement. It is quite insane that the U.S. continues to use coal for energy generation when there are alternatives. It is insane that we continue to poison ourselves with the affects of oil drilling, coal mining and nuclear waste when there are alternatives. It is insane that we continue to move goods long distances in noxious, polluting fuel inefficient trucks- when there can be alternatives.

To help speed up research, it is essential to move from bilateral to multilateral cooperation, said Chen Kun from the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. “It is the first time China has the opportunity to share knowledge with India, Indonesia and Turkey on this technology.”

Indonesia is considering building its first nuclear power plant with molten salt reactor design, said Bob Soelaiman Effendi from Indonesia Thorium Energy Community. “For a developing country like Indonesia, a molten salt reactor’s higher efficiency in electricity generation makes it more economical and affordable than fossil-fuel power plants.”


17 countries cooperating on Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor Design and development – NextBigFuture.com
Click to expand...

I have nothing against newer greener technologies. Let the free market usher them in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom