-
Enjoy XS650.com? Consider making a donation to help support the site.
XS650.com receives a small share of sales from some links on this page, but direct donations have a much greater impact on keeping this site going.
Do we care about the enviroment !!! ????
- Thread starter 650Skull
- Start date
Well, in my opinion, no one is really moving fast enough, but China is actually outperforming us as far as renewable energy goes...
In 2020, China added 71.6 GW of wind power generation capacity to reach a total capacity of 281GW.[6] Both China's installed capacity and new capacity in 2020 are the largest in the world by a wide margin, with the next largest market, the United States, adding 14 GW in 2020 and having an installed capacity of 118 GW.
Link.
I'm not a fan of China (don't get me started...
) , and as I said, no one is moving quick enough in my opinion... but china is working on it just like we are.... only quicker.
Psss... hey @gggGary ... I give to Wiki pretty regular too. Everyone who uses it should.
In 2020, China added 71.6 GW of wind power generation capacity to reach a total capacity of 281GW.[6] Both China's installed capacity and new capacity in 2020 are the largest in the world by a wide margin, with the next largest market, the United States, adding 14 GW in 2020 and having an installed capacity of 118 GW.
Link.
I'm not a fan of China (don't get me started...
) , and as I said, no one is moving quick enough in my opinion... but china is working on it just like we are.... only quicker. Psss... hey @gggGary ... I give to Wiki pretty regular too. Everyone who uses it should.
Climate Change: China Plans 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants
But, but, they plan on being carbon neutral by 2060...whatever that is. Once you pollute, it's a done deal, you can't buy you way out of it.
But, but, they plan on being carbon neutral by 2060...whatever that is. Once you pollute, it's a done deal, you can't buy you way out of it.
"China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. 100 more with an anticipated capacity of over 100 GW, are planned by 2035."
cuz y'know that's the way forward.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...r-nuclear-reactor--of-course/?sh=59b5b8e145e0
cuz y'know that's the way forward.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...r-nuclear-reactor--of-course/?sh=59b5b8e145e0
Wow. I guess my memory failed me. I could have sworn that Global Cooling was a thing. But if the Google machine says it wasn't then...
Maybe I was thinking of Over-population? Or was it the vanishing ozone layer? Or Worldwide famine? Nuclear holocaust? Mass extinction? Global warming? It's hard to keep track. Strange how the solutions all look alike. And, that the biggest proponents of "Climate Change" seem to line their pockets while buying oceanfront property they tell us will be underwater in just a few years.
"Green on the outside, red on the inside" - Walter Williams
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go explain to my kids what snow is since they've never seen it (Al Gore - net worth $300M+)
Maybe I was thinking of Over-population? Or was it the vanishing ozone layer? Or Worldwide famine? Nuclear holocaust? Mass extinction? Global warming? It's hard to keep track. Strange how the solutions all look alike. And, that the biggest proponents of "Climate Change" seem to line their pockets while buying oceanfront property they tell us will be underwater in just a few years.
"Green on the outside, red on the inside" - Walter Williams
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go explain to my kids what snow is since they've never seen it (Al Gore - net worth $300M+)
Oh it was a thing alright.... for about 3 months in the early seventies. Within 6 months it was thoroughly debunked because junk science doesn't usually survive real peer review..... but what a glorious 6 months it was...
Leonard Nimoy told us this stuff on the TV. He was Spock and beyond reproach. Debunking him wasn't so easy as engaging in internet searches.Oh it was a thing alright.... for about 3 months in the early seventies. Within 6 months it was thoroughly debunked because junk science doesn't usually survive real peer review..... but what a glorious 6 months it was...
Yes, I remember that show and Nimoy talking about it. Just goes to show we shouldn't be looking to TV stars for science... that includes... ehem... reality TV stars...
Was a bit facetious about the timeline above.
Here's a good article about the timeline of The Great Ice Age.
"Things came to a head in 1975, when the US National Academy of Sciences published a report that prompted a number of news stories. The thrust of the report was that climate prediction was not yet possible, and it outlined a plan of action for fostering a research program to change that. But it also summarized the state of scientific knowledge at the time."
It was pretty much at this point the scientific community quit making wild assed guesses and started doing the real work of scientific study.... and here we are.
Was a bit facetious about the timeline above.
Here's a good article about the timeline of The Great Ice Age.
"Things came to a head in 1975, when the US National Academy of Sciences published a report that prompted a number of news stories. The thrust of the report was that climate prediction was not yet possible, and it outlined a plan of action for fostering a research program to change that. But it also summarized the state of scientific knowledge at the time."
It was pretty much at this point the scientific community quit making wild assed guesses and started doing the real work of scientific study.... and here we are.
From the article referenced above.....
"It wasn't just magazines, either. A 1978 episode of the Leonard Nimoy-narrated In Search of… TV series also lives on for its over-the-top warning of an ice-covered North America within a lifetime. That episode was about as wrong then as it looks today, but it is hard to argue that we should expect a show that spent most of its hours exploring supposed “paranormal mysteries” would be expected to accurately and soberly summarize the state of the science. (The previous episode, by the way, warned in similarly dramatic tones of an unstoppable US invasion from the south—by fire ants.) Still, the “ice age” episode apparently left a memorable impression."
"It wasn't just magazines, either. A 1978 episode of the Leonard Nimoy-narrated In Search of… TV series also lives on for its over-the-top warning of an ice-covered North America within a lifetime. That episode was about as wrong then as it looks today, but it is hard to argue that we should expect a show that spent most of its hours exploring supposed “paranormal mysteries” would be expected to accurately and soberly summarize the state of the science. (The previous episode, by the way, warned in similarly dramatic tones of an unstoppable US invasion from the south—by fire ants.) Still, the “ice age” episode apparently left a memorable impression."
I'll posit that our "understanding" of the levers and mechanisms of the earths climate can be compared to being somewhere around the "rutherford model" level of understanding of the atom.
https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-atomic-theory-4129185
The scientists have pried back and are peeking in on one corner of an incredibly complicated globe of interactions and it will take quite while longer to get a real handle on the "ways of the world". Add a political solution crafted by many with hidden agendas and a "solution" depending on changing one bogeyman (CO2) seems doomed to fail.
Planet surface is roughly 3/4 ocean; https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210119-why-saving-whales-can-help-fight-climate-change.
https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-atomic-theory-4129185
The scientists have pried back and are peeking in on one corner of an incredibly complicated globe of interactions and it will take quite while longer to get a real handle on the "ways of the world". Add a political solution crafted by many with hidden agendas and a "solution" depending on changing one bogeyman (CO2) seems doomed to fail.
Planet surface is roughly 3/4 ocean; https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210119-why-saving-whales-can-help-fight-climate-change.
YJust goes to show we shouldn't be looking to TV stars for science... that includes... ehem... reality TV stars...
Right? I prefer to get my science information from bartender/politicians. "Like, the planet is like, totally like changing and stuff. Like, we only have 12 years before we like die and stuff" Loosely translated... Or teenage girls on the spectrum... Or actors, or....
https://k-gallowglaich.medium.com/t...bout-climate-change-by-the-1960s-1159179255e4
Make sure your children read this........just for objectivity purposes
https://www.nationofchange.org/2021/10/28/what-big-oil-knew-about-climate-change-in-its-own-words/
I'll let Gary's quote address the A Gore comment
This post does not have a political ad-gender. It has different graphs that show why the need to look at the overall and make sure what is being shown/said is in the interest of the truth and not for selfish reasons.
The interesting thing is Australia lags behind the US looking at the full picture
Australia's claims on their emissions reduction...........Graphs show why you have to be careful who you believe when they use a graph to push their own ad-gender
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-08/fact-check-scott-morrison-emissions-in-the-g20/100676322
The interesting thing is Australia lags behind the US looking at the full picture
Australia's claims on their emissions reduction...........Graphs show why you have to be careful who you believe when they use a graph to push their own ad-gender
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-08/fact-check-scott-morrison-emissions-in-the-g20/100676322
Lucky for us, Joe Biden has ordered that the US Government will stop buying gasoline vehicles by 2035...
Biden Orders Federal Vehicles and Buildings to Use Renewable Energy by 2050 - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Biden Orders Federal Vehicles and Buildings to Use Renewable Energy by 2050 - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/4/2...naires-wealth-inequality-jeff-bezos-net-worth
As an aside
@gggGary No you don't have to buy off Amazon............I never have and never will.
As an aside
@gggGary No you don't have to buy off Amazon............I never have and never will.
FLEA
XS650 Guru
intresting reading
And on another note to us motorcyclists from the UK....
https://na01.safelinks.protection.o...+fU1lCtIls6pa8+JgYdSnKAiahMCQ=&reserved=0
"the wealth of the 0.001 percent could address many of the world’s most pressing humanitarian challenges"
from your link skull. The thing is they already do. Where do you think a lot of that wealth comes from?
Think of the big names
Bezos Amazon the most efficent prurveyor of goods on the planet.
Simply; he gets more goods to more people at a lower cost than anyone one else in the history of man has ever been able to do.
Musk made a fortune with google, took that money and has grown at least 3 OTHER major, game changing, companies.
You want to reduce CO2? Tesla is driving innovation needed to get you away from your petroleum addiction.
Gates revolutionized computing, putting immense power in so many businesses and homes. Now funds a LOT of third world infrastructure and health projects.
on and on.
Those fortunes come and then they go, on to the next generation of entrepreneurs, changing the world in ways no "government" could envision much less orchestrate.
Governments have a place and necessary functions, but they are as corruptible and dangerous as any businessman. And much less likely to create sustainable new ways of living.
That video needs more views. It is disgusting to me that there are people who wield that kind of malice for motorcycles or internal combustion engines period.
Nice job dodging the point. Al Gore made his money peddling this nonsense.