teachercd Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 You mean...the environment is going to keep changing and not stay the same? Ugggg! 1 1 1 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 9 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Not exactly building a lot of confidence for the rest of Biden's upcoming choices for cabinet and advisor positions imo. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted November 21, 2020 Author Share Posted November 21, 2020 On 11/18/2020 at 1:32 PM, RedDenver said: I'm about to just f#&%ing give up on us having a government that gives a s#!t about its people. https://theintercept.com/2020/11/11/biden-epa-transition-dupont-mccabe/ Quote McCabe’s team worked so closely with EPA staff that they sometimes knew what was contained in the agency’s documents before they became public and saw at least one presentation before it was given. The DuPont team also drafted quotes that they attributed to EPA officials in DuPont press releases. In 2007, attorney Rob Bilott, who sued DuPont over the contamination, deposed McCabe. When asked about requesting quotes from the EPA, McCabe said the practice was “customary.” Senator Biden introduces Wilmington resident Michael McCabe, right, a former member of Biden’s staff, at a Senate hearing on McCabe’s nomination to be a top EPA administrator in February 2000. Photo: US Congress Ultimately, his team succeeded in avoiding regulation that would have cost DuPont dearly. One of the upshots of the months of negotiations was an agreement to phase out PFOA. As part of the negotiations for that deal, McCabe’s team requested that the EPA issue reassuring statements about the safety of chemicals and products that contained PFOA. The EPA obliged. And I don't care that Biden says this guy will recuse himself on matters related to his. Why can't they promote some long-time EPA person? 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted November 21, 2020 Author Share Posted November 21, 2020 1 minute ago, BlitzFirst said: Now you know why I bristled with Biden so much and was so Pro-Bernie. I want progressives across the board because they'll be willing to talk about moving things in new directions instead of the same old s#!t, different day. I warned everyone that Biden was going to be bad for progressive issues and would tow the Demo-publican line. I already knew why and agreed with it. I expect Biden to be 1% as bad for this country as Trump, but only 1% as good as he should be. He's the status quo and the status quo wasn't good. It was just light years better than Trump. 2 Link to comment
teachercd Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 6 hours ago, Moiraine said: I already knew why and agreed with it. I expect Biden to be 1% as bad for this country as Trump, but only 1% as good as he should be. He's the status quo and the status quo wasn't good. It was just light years better than Trump. This is actually what I think. Link to comment
Ratt Mhule Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 9 hours ago, Moiraine said: I already knew why and agreed with it. I expect Biden to be 1% as bad for this country as Trump, but only 1% as good as he should be. He's the status quo and the status quo wasn't good. It was just light years better than Trump. He is literally going to take us back to the exact same place as what got us Trump in the first place. Literally the same guys. f#&%ing Rahm Emanuel is being considered for a cabinet position. These pieces of s#!t never f#&%ing learn and its going to get us a worse and smarter Trump and there is no coming back from that. 80 million people voted for Biden. The most in American history. They all didnt vote for you. Majority voted because they hate Trump. Theres a difference. You arent getting 80 million people to come back out and vote for you if you take us back to status quo bulls#!t. And if Trump runs again in 2024 and Biden doesnt do s#!t these next four years, Trump will win in a landslide. 2 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ why do we need back in Paris Accord when we are doing good and the main polluters are not held to account. Instead of wasting time on all these accords, spend the time and resources in developing more nuclear energy. 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 On 11/21/2020 at 8:51 AM, Archy1221 said: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ why do we need back in Paris Accord when we are doing good and the main polluters are not held to account. Instead of wasting time on all these accords, spend the time and resources in developing more nuclear energy. New PV and wind already much cheaper than new nuclear plus don't have issue of highly radioactive waste for millennia. Lazard recently released their annual analysis of levelized cost of energy and storage: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ There's a lot in those reports, but here's the biggest takeaway IMO: the cost of building brand new wind and PV is getting to be cost competitive with existing nuclear and gas combined cycle (and is cheaper than existing coal). 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted January 24, 2021 Author Share Posted January 24, 2021 21 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: I feel you aren’t interested in learning anything. Your first reaction to seeing this should be what the starting points are. But you never seem to go to that next step. The US has the highest CO2 emmissions per capita in the world. To answer the idiot Tweeter, yes. In the agreement, countries can increase in total but decrease in intensity. That means countries like China will continue to increase for awhile. They are still developing as compared to some of the other countries. I think the agreement could probably be stricter but it definitely doesn’t seem fair to try to cap a country like India where they are. It would really halt their development, and they have far lower CO2 emmissions per capita than the U.S. Lastly, the U.S. didn’t exit until Nov. 2020, so that reduction happened while we were part of it. Quote Speaking at an online summit on the fifth anniversary of the Paris climate agreement, Xi Jinping, China's leader, said that by 2030, China would reduce its carbon intensity by over 65 percent. ... That goal means that as China'seconomy grows, so will its emissions, but at a slower rate than before. Quote China will aim to hit peak emissions before 2030 and for carbon neutrality by 2060, President Xi Jinping has announced. 5 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 8 hours ago, Moiraine said: I feel you aren’t interested in learning anything. Your first reaction to seeing this should be what the starting points are. But you never seem to go to that next step. The US has the highest CO2 emmissions per capita in the world. To answer the idiot Tweeter, yes. In the agreement, countries can increase in total but decrease in intensity. That means countries like China will continue to increase for awhile. They are still developing as compared to some of the other countries. I think the agreement could probably be stricter but it definitely doesn’t seem fair to try to cap a country like India where they are. It would really halt their development, and they have far lower CO2 emmissions per capita than the U.S. Lastly, the U.S. didn’t exit until Nov. 2020, so that reduction happened while we were part of it. I feel you have a way of thinking then try and work backwards to prove a point that never gets proven. Like you are not interested in learning. First, what exactly did the US change when it “entered into” the climate agreement before ‘formally’ exiting in 2020 besides maybe reporting certain numbers? Next, US growth while keeping emissions the same. Lastly, ask the question of why we don’t rely on nuclear more and who is holding that back? US GDP in 1990= 5.96 trillion. US GDP in 2019= 21.4trillion US greenhouse gas emissions 1990~= 6.2 metric tons. US greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 ~= 6.2 metric tons. It’s almost as if China is not using newer technology to keep costs in check to export cheap products while the US has grown roughly 4 times the size while keeping its emissions in check. So why do we need to enter into a climate agreement for something we already do?? https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092915/5-countries-produce-most-carbon-dioxide-co2.asp Share of CO2 Emissions By Country China (28%) Rest of the World (23%) United States (15%) India (7%) Russia (5%) Japan (3%) Germany (2%) Iran (2%) South Korea (2%) Saudi Arabia (2%) Indonesia (2%) Canada (2%) Mexico (1%) South Africa (1%) Brazil (1%) Turkey (1%) Australia (1%) United Kingdom (1%) Poland (1%) 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 17 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said: whole lot of graphs and charts to prove nothing. Thanks for posting that. When you choose to not look at the data or read the sourcing within, ya I guess I could see how you come to that conclusion. Thanks for the feedback. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 On 11/21/2020 at 9:38 AM, Frott Scost said: what got us Trump in the first place What policies or practices could Democrats have adopted to prevent Republicans falling in love with fascism? Link to comment
Recommended Posts