Nancy Pelosi hosts virtual G7 summit with world leaders: 'The climate crisis is the existential threat of our time'
Speakers of parliament from G7 joined, plus Bono and the Dalai Lama
www.foxnews.com
Nancy Pelosi hosts virtual G7 summit with world leaders: 'The climate crisis is the existential threat of our time'
- Thread starter Guard Dad
- Start date
www.foxnews.com
The Sound Guy
Pursuit Driver
Her and Soros.
Stonewall
Expert Driver
OK Pelosi is an idiot and a parasite I will not debate that. I do like to think of myself as an independent thinker and one who can ignore the politics of a matter and logically come up with my own ideas about a situation. The environment and climate change are a subject which I probably do a 360 from my usual very right wing, very conservative views. I don't like the broad term climate change and do not believe it is totally a man made thing by any means. I do believe from an environmental standpoint that mankind has caused and continues to cause extensive damage to the environment which in some cases may contribute to climate changes. As big as it is the earth and its atmosphere are finite. Unless you totally dismiss any scientific knowledge you have to agree with this. The introduction of chemicals and gases into the air and water absolutely effects ecosystems which in turn may effect climate and definitely effect the quality and variety of life on the planet. Atmosphere is renewable to some point and self correcting to a point. Green vegetation in particular helps filter carbons and supply oxygen. We are clearing massive forest and turning green land into human/domesticated stock habitat and developments at a staggering rate. Human generated garbage of non-biodegradable materials is a massive issue world wide. The logical thought is that carbon gases introduced into the atmosphere at massive rates absolutely has to effect the environment to some degree. I am not an over the top alarmist but I do try to think objectively and logically on most subjects. The thought process that mankind can continue to take from the earth without consequence seems like an ignorant mindset to me. Screw politics and partisanship the gift of being at the top of the food chain comes with responsibilities. JMO.
Boss 302
Pursuit Driver
He many forests would have to be cleared and/or farm fields be used to construct windmills to generate enough electricity to replace our current power plants? Clearing more forests would make it more difficult to produce oxygen. Using farm fields for windmills would reduce agricultural production. The average lifespan for the turbine of a windmill is 20-25 years. Maintenance and replacement of them would be a very expensive endeavor; driving up the cost of electricity to consumers.
This is from MIT Engineering: Sclavounos calculates that a wind farm sufficient to power all of New York City would spread over 4,000 square kilometers of offshore terrain — 40 by 40 miles, or a land area roughly equivalent to half of Yellowstone National Park. A wind farm of a more typical size, one rated 300 megawatts, say, would occupy a five-by-five mile swath of ocean and could power 1.5% of the city. “That’s a start,” says Sclavounos.
.
How many would it take to power the entire US? 583,00 on shore turbines.
www.businessinsider.com
.
How will animal activists react to these huge windmill farms going up to power the US? It's a proven fact these windmills can kill flocks of birds. Remember the controversy back inn the 80s when a turbine field was discovered to be killing thousands of migrating birds? How about how a Mojave Desert solar plant kills more than 6,000 birds a year by simply flying over it?
www.latimes.com
This is from MIT Engineering: Sclavounos calculates that a wind farm sufficient to power all of New York City would spread over 4,000 square kilometers of offshore terrain — 40 by 40 miles, or a land area roughly equivalent to half of Yellowstone National Park. A wind farm of a more typical size, one rated 300 megawatts, say, would occupy a five-by-five mile swath of ocean and could power 1.5% of the city. “That’s a start,” says Sclavounos.
How many would it take to power the entire US? 583,00 on shore turbines.
Here's how much of the US would need to be covered in wind turbines to power the nation
Wind farms provide less than 5% of the US's energy. Here's how many turbines it would take to power the entire country.
www.businessinsider.com
How will animal activists react to these huge windmill farms going up to power the US? It's a proven fact these windmills can kill flocks of birds. Remember the controversy back inn the 80s when a turbine field was discovered to be killing thousands of migrating birds? How about how a Mojave Desert solar plant kills more than 6,000 birds a year by simply flying over it?
This Mojave Desert solar plant kills 6,000 birds a year. Here's why that won't change any time soon
A macabre fireworks show unfolds each day along I-15 west of Las Vegas, as birds fly into concentrated beams of sunlight and are instantly incinerated, leaving wisps of white smoke against the blue desert sky.
www.latimes.com
Stonewall
Expert Driver
Misdirection, this is not about windmills, hydro or solar panels. Don't care about the politics of the matter. DJT is not going to make up a funny nickname that is going to change jack. Drill baby drill sounds like something an ignorant drunk redneck would come up with. Does not change the fact we are stewards of the earth and we (mankind) have a long way to go to be ecofriendly. Fossil fuel is finite period. Someone better research and come up with viable options. For every negative story about alternative options I see very little attempt to come up with a better answer for fossil fuel from those on the extreme right of this issue. I don't think wind or solar is viable. Hydro (wave energy) has some interesting possibilities. Maybe a new element or conductor that has yet to be harnessed I honestly don't know. Fact is doing nothing is not an option and is like sticking your head in the sand. I know I sound like a "tree hugger". Hell maybe I am. Have no doubt I am to the far right on most issues but I can think for myself. I can tell you I am a conservationist who loves the outdoors and likes wildlife more than most people I come across. People are so consumed by being right in the political sense that we are blind to the truth sometimes. JMO.
The Sound Guy
Pursuit Driver
I agree that mankind does effect changes in the climates. I also recognize that long before man came around, climate changed without their input as well. The left's idea that all climate change is caused by man is a very prideful stance. The continuation of that idea that mankind has the ability to stop climate change *no matter what the cause* is even more prideful.
My complaint is that we have no proof that the change we are seeing is man-made, and even if it was, that it is reversible no matter what the cause. If we spend all our resources on attempting to reverse the irreversible, we'll have nothing left to counter the results of the change. I'm not saying that we should abandon attempting to test and find ways to change our use of world resources to avoid the man-made component of the change, but there needs to be a balanced approach in case it does turn out as bad as been predicted and is completely unstoppable because its' parts of Earth's natural cycles. We will need to have plans in place.
I agree that we need to take better care of the Earth, and totally support genuine efforts to do so. The planet is warming, I don't think there's any doubt about that.
It's the left's version of this that I reject. They have exaggerated their data and made the issue completely political, and it's more about control than it is saving the planet. We can do this without severely crippling the economy. In fact, we need a robust economy to pay for the technology needed to get away from fossil fuels, just to name one.
It's the left's version of this that I reject. They have exaggerated their data and made the issue completely political, and it's more about control than it is saving the planet. We can do this without severely crippling the economy. In fact, we need a robust economy to pay for the technology needed to get away from fossil fuels, just to name one.
Paxilpapa
Serenity, through modern chemistry
I think that it is not so much what we are doing, but how many of us that are doing it. At 7.5 billion and growing, the need for food and shelter will add to the adverse affects we are seeing. Add to that all the byproducts and waste we create daily have to go somewhere and be dealt with. Population control is the answer that no one wants to hear or participate in, but is still a necessity.
Welcome to the 'Brave new World'.
Welcome to the 'Brave new World'.
Far West
Pursuit Driver
Sorry this is long... but don't fall for us rescuing failed countries due to their failed government structure. We will just become them... a socialist shit hole nation. It is not hard to imagine as we watching what the dark forces have done to major American cities recently in the name of social justice/BLM.
The interesting thing about mankind, is that we are constantly looking to improve. Build a better mousetrap, or do better than the Jones'. If you look at the advancements in life since 1906 for instance, when my grandmother was born, it is awesome the changes in life that have been made possible from people with the ability and freedom to invent and bring their inventions to the public.
Just as we went from burning cow poop, coal, or wood to heat our homes or cook our food... to gas... to electricity... then cooking with microwaves... there will be another advancement we don't even know about now... but it will happen, because that is what man does... builds upon past technology to invent new technology.
For the government to regulate us without the next advancement available, will probably prevent the next advancement from occurring. Government from Nancy's G7 summits do not promote advancement, they stifle it.
America is one of the nations who has the most successful advancements of technology and inventions. We have more major corporations because we, as Americans, have had the liberty to pursue our dreams of inventions and the ability to enjoy the economic prosperity it provides due to our Constitutional Republic. Humans do things for their own good, we are not an altruistic being as a whole.
If you look at the history of mankind since the world began, man is wired to conquer and invent and compete.
Government getting in the middle of that does not promote advancement. It is a diminishing force.
These groups want one world government, and look to give away our freedoms and protections that were written into our constitution, We can see that in the quote "environmental justice for economically vulnerable and frontline communities." They do not want a better life for you or I... they want power and are to be feared.
They will take away all the reasons the United States, worldwide, is known to provide the most opportunity, liberty and justice for their citizens. America, despite what the BLM, or social justice warriors, or climate activists try to brainwash the masses, has the most just human rights of any other country, has continued to improve air and water quality, and continues to feed the world with our agriculture.
Those that don't understand that, have never traveled to other countries to see the wealth and prosperity our citizens enjoy over those other countries. Those other countries suffer due to their government, not due to our prosperity.
Our prosperity is made possible by our constitution and our Constitutional Republic. Much of our success and ability to sustain our own country is directly threatened by groups such as these G7 summits that look to other countries to take away our rights and freedoms.
Let's face it, the more regulations the EPA punitively puts on American business, only cause those businesses to close or move to China or India. China and India benefit from no regulations and do nothing to protect their people. Then our only option is to rely on countries who have worse air, water, and human rights protection than our country... it is a farce.
We all know 0bama, for instance, used the EPA to punitively punish many industries and land owners in the USA, and that was wrong. Trump has undone much of that, but remains committed to clean air and clean water, as it should be.
Fear this...from the posted article:
Pelosi and her fellow legislative leaders agreed that climate change and the coronavirus pandemic require a robust government response as does environmental justice for economically vulnerable and frontline communities.
"Climate policy can end the perpetuation of systemic inequalities," the leaders wrote in their joint statement.
This is pure wealth distribution. It is a farce that America should give our citizen's money to any organization to improve a foreign country. Their own government instead should think about becoming a Constitutional Republic if they want the prosperity our country enjoys. That won't happen because just like our American politicians, they want power and control, they do not care about the prosperity of the people of their nation.
Instead American treasure is given to corrupt world government leaders by corrupt American Politicians in return for lucrative contracts for American Politicians' relatives. The shit hole country will remains that way due to their corrupt and ineffective government no matter how much money their government is given. Climate change or any other cause will never be solved by giveing away American wealth to other nations.
Don't believe me... just trace all the money that was wasted on green energy giveaways by the 0bama administration.
The interesting thing about mankind, is that we are constantly looking to improve. Build a better mousetrap, or do better than the Jones'. If you look at the advancements in life since 1906 for instance, when my grandmother was born, it is awesome the changes in life that have been made possible from people with the ability and freedom to invent and bring their inventions to the public.
Just as we went from burning cow poop, coal, or wood to heat our homes or cook our food... to gas... to electricity... then cooking with microwaves... there will be another advancement we don't even know about now... but it will happen, because that is what man does... builds upon past technology to invent new technology.
For the government to regulate us without the next advancement available, will probably prevent the next advancement from occurring. Government from Nancy's G7 summits do not promote advancement, they stifle it.
America is one of the nations who has the most successful advancements of technology and inventions. We have more major corporations because we, as Americans, have had the liberty to pursue our dreams of inventions and the ability to enjoy the economic prosperity it provides due to our Constitutional Republic. Humans do things for their own good, we are not an altruistic being as a whole.
If you look at the history of mankind since the world began, man is wired to conquer and invent and compete.
Government getting in the middle of that does not promote advancement. It is a diminishing force.
These groups want one world government, and look to give away our freedoms and protections that were written into our constitution, We can see that in the quote "environmental justice for economically vulnerable and frontline communities." They do not want a better life for you or I... they want power and are to be feared.
They will take away all the reasons the United States, worldwide, is known to provide the most opportunity, liberty and justice for their citizens. America, despite what the BLM, or social justice warriors, or climate activists try to brainwash the masses, has the most just human rights of any other country, has continued to improve air and water quality, and continues to feed the world with our agriculture.
Those that don't understand that, have never traveled to other countries to see the wealth and prosperity our citizens enjoy over those other countries. Those other countries suffer due to their government, not due to our prosperity.
Our prosperity is made possible by our constitution and our Constitutional Republic. Much of our success and ability to sustain our own country is directly threatened by groups such as these G7 summits that look to other countries to take away our rights and freedoms.
Let's face it, the more regulations the EPA punitively puts on American business, only cause those businesses to close or move to China or India. China and India benefit from no regulations and do nothing to protect their people. Then our only option is to rely on countries who have worse air, water, and human rights protection than our country... it is a farce.
We all know 0bama, for instance, used the EPA to punitively punish many industries and land owners in the USA, and that was wrong. Trump has undone much of that, but remains committed to clean air and clean water, as it should be.
Fear this...from the posted article:
Pelosi and her fellow legislative leaders agreed that climate change and the coronavirus pandemic require a robust government response as does environmental justice for economically vulnerable and frontline communities.
"Climate policy can end the perpetuation of systemic inequalities," the leaders wrote in their joint statement.
This is pure wealth distribution. It is a farce that America should give our citizen's money to any organization to improve a foreign country. Their own government instead should think about becoming a Constitutional Republic if they want the prosperity our country enjoys. That won't happen because just like our American politicians, they want power and control, they do not care about the prosperity of the people of their nation.
Instead American treasure is given to corrupt world government leaders by corrupt American Politicians in return for lucrative contracts for American Politicians' relatives. The shit hole country will remains that way due to their corrupt and ineffective government no matter how much money their government is given. Climate change or any other cause will never be solved by giveing away American wealth to other nations.
Don't believe me... just trace all the money that was wasted on green energy giveaways by the 0bama administration.
Last edited:
Boss 302
Pursuit Driver
The point I was trying to make in my previous point is what other environmental and ecological damage will we do with solar and windmill fields on and offshore? Would be just creating other environmental problems in exchange of fixing existing ones? The ramifications could be significantly worse than what "climatologists" think.