DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Secular Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2691--------------------------------------------------
Climate change and other things
By: Kerry Date: July 28, 2015, 12:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I see Hillary Clinton just hired a private jet that burns 347
gallons of fuel an hour. What's up with that? According to
the Daily Mail
HTML http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3176630/Video-shows-Hillary-Clinton-boarding-private-jet-just-hours-launching-global-warming-push-s-using-FRENCH-aircraft-burns-347-gallons-fuel-hour.html:<br
/>
Just hours after Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential
campaign's push to solve global warming through an aggressive
carbon-cutting plan, she sauntered up the steps of a 19-seat
private jet in Des Moines, Iowa.
The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of
fuel per hour. And like all Dassault business jets, Hillary's
ride was made in France.
The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent,
according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company
that owns it.
And she has used the same plane before, including on at least
one trip for speeches that brought her $500,000 in fees.
But then we also see people taking jets to climate change
conferences. Couldn't they do it by phone?
I also wonder what the push for more and more international
trade is about if the reduction of green house gases is so
important. Something get mined in one country, shipped to
another and made into something there and then shipped to a
third one. Does that make sense if you could mine the same
thing and manufacture the same things in your own country?
Obviously the reason is economic, you can pay workers in some
countries less. Thus you make more money even after paying all
the shipping costs.
Who's really benefiting then? The companies that do it, that's
who. It's not the people getting paid lower wages. We may
believe we're profiting since we get cheaper goods; but are we
really profiting? Some jobs have already left the country;
and it's known the new trade deal, if it goes through, will
result in job losses since the Senate just passed a provision to
help people who lose their jobs. All this to increase
corporate profits -- and to keep the campaign contributions
flowing to politicians.
It is also not desirable to have too big a difference in wages
among countries. We see how that works now. If wages are that
much higher in the US than in Latin American countries,
naturally people will try to immigrate to the US legally or
illegally. Something similar is happening in Europe where the
flow of immigrants from Africa and the Mid-East seems about
ready to overwhelm some countries.
Who is footing the bill for benefits for legal immigrants to the
US? If they have green cards, they qualify for benefits. We
can talk about free markets and say companies should be allowed
to pay low wages in other countries if it's legal; but we need
to see that if allow the importing of goods manufactured in
countries with extremely low wages, we will continue to see
immigrants coming and who then often get government benefits
which taxpayers pay for. And we'll continue to see enormous
amounts of fuel being consumed on shipping costs which would be
unnecessary if the goods were produced closer to where they were
being sold.
There also seems to be a growing market in the US for immigrant
workers. The number of green cards being issued to legal
immigrants is way up. There must be a market for illegal
workers or they wouldn't come. We seem headed to becoming like
Saudi Arabia which imports so many workers. Foreigners are seen
as second-class people. They do the work Saudis don't want to.
Meanwhile black neighborhoods are still experiencing high
unemployment; and I'm convinced this is the major cause behind
much of the unrest we see. It's affecting Latinos too who have
been here a long time and whites who are described as unskilled.
"Free trade" doesn't seem like a good idea to me, not if some
countries have such low wages. Even if you don't buy the
climate change idea, using fuel unnecessarily is not a good
plan. Having high immigration is not good.
Talking about energy reminds me of another question. While it's
true that President Obama has said he's in favor of more nuclear
power and less coal and oil, he's actually promoted solar power
more than nuclear. That makes me wonder about the Iran deal.
If solar power is so good for the US, why didn't he push Iran to
go solar? Why not make a deal with them to get them solar
panels cheap if necessary? I'm sure China would have been glad
to sell them solar panels cheap. Or why not have the US sell
them solar panels cheap? Iran has sand. Is it the right kind
to make solar panels? If it is, why not give them the
technology free on how to make them? Or get American companies
to go there and produce them cheaply there with a modest profit?
It's really true Iran needs a different kind of energy.
The air in their cities is horrible.
Some things don't seem to make sense to me. Why argue with Iran
over whether they should be allowed to have nuclear energy?
They should be asked if they really want it. We don't know
what to do with our own depleted uranium. It's a continuing
problem. And it's not safe to have around. If it fell into the
wrong hands, it could pose a huge problem. It poses dangers
from accidents. It's not only the Russians and Japanese with
problems. You probably haven't heard much about it; but an
American stockpile stored in a dome is leaking now. It's not
big news since it's out in the Pacific and affects only the
people there so far. Radiation has leaked out, and a typhoon or
any kind of storm surge could spread it according to The
Guardian
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-pacific-radioactive-waste:<br
/>
Brackish water pools around the edge of the dome, where sections
of concrete have started to crack away. Underground, radioactive
waste has already started to leach out of the crater: according
to a 2013 report by the US Department of Energy, soil around the
dome is already more contaminated than its contents.
Now locals, scientists and environmental activists fear that a
storm surge, typhoon or other cataclysmic event brought on by
climate change could tear the concrete mantel wide open,
releasing its contents into the Pacific Ocean.
“Runit Dome represents a tragic confluence of nuclear testing
and climate change,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin
Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, who
visited the dome in 2010.
“It resulted from US nuclear testing and the leaving behind of
large quantities of plutonium,” he said. “Now it has been
gradually submerged as result of sea level rise from greenhouse
gas emissions by industrial countries led by the United States.”
Again we see how some people are being treated like second class
people.
#Post#: 2698--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate change and other things
By: bradley Date: July 28, 2015, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I figure that about 90% of the proclamations concerning climate
change are about making certain people gain more power and
money, and reducing the income of the opponents to the
proclamations. I think they are both in the wrong and only
use the subject to make the others look bad and hurt them in
some way. They care more about power and ANY way to get it
than to help humanity and the earth.
#Post#: 2702--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate change and other things
By: Kerry Date: July 29, 2015, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bradley link=topic=308.msg2698#msg2698
date=1438095270]
I figure that about 90% of the proclamations concerning climate
change are about making certain people gain more power and
money, and reducing the income of the opponents to the
proclamations. I think they are both in the wrong and only
use the subject to make the others look bad and hurt them in
some way. They care more about power and ANY way to get it
than to help humanity and the earth.[/quote]I tend to think the
same thing.
It was a little surprising to me when Al Gore, in 2010, admitted
his position on ethanol had more to do with politics in Iowa and
performing well there in the caucuses than with any real
science. It's not a surprise he did it but it is one that he
admitted it. From politicsdaily.com
HTML http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/23/al-gore-mea-culpa-support-for-corn-based-ethanol-was-a-mistake/:
Now he tells us. Al Gore says his support for corn-based ethanol
subsidies while serving as vice president was a mistake that had
more to do with his desire to cultivate farm votes in the 2000
presidential election than with what was good for the
environment.
"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for
first-generation ethanol," Gore said at a green energy
conference in Athens, Greece, according to Reuters. First
generation refers to the most basic, energy-intensive process of
converting corn to ethanol for use as a motor vehicle fuel
additive.
Former Vice President Al GoreOn reflection, Gore said the energy
conversion ratios -- how much energy is produced in the process
-- "are at best very small." "One of the reasons I made that
mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my
home state of Tennessee," he said, "and I had a certain fondness
for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run
for president."
Federal ethanol subsidies reached $7.7 billion last year,
Reuters said, and the bio-fuel industry faced criticism in 2008
as food prices rose with ethanol consuming ever more of the corn
crop and drawing down feedstocks. Gore now favors
second-generation ethanol, using farm waste and switchgrass to
produce the fuel.
The idea of burning ethanol instead of gasoline to prevent the
build up of more carbon dioxide never did make sense to me.
Ethanol has carbon in it. If you burn it, you get carbon
dioxide. And the amount of electricity used to produce ethanol
was high -- and guess what, most of it came from burning coal!
The outcome of the 2000 Iowa caucuses got Gore what he wanted.
He got over 60% of the votes and most of the delegates. And
the Iowa farmers got what they wanted -- a bigger demand for
corn. But it raised food prices, that's for sure, and in poor
countries as well as here. The new gasoline damaged parts in
cars that were not intended to be subjected to ethanol.
*****************************************************