President Biden Asserts 'Climate Change Is an Emergency'
But does not declare that it is a "national emergency."

President Joe Biden did not succumb to pressure from leading members of the Democratic Party to declare a national state of climate emergency in his remarks in Somerset, Massachusetts, this afternoon. Nevertheless, speaking at the site of the decommissioned coal-fired Brayton Point Power Station, Biden did assert that "climate change is an emergency" and "a clear and present danger" to the United States.
As evidence, Biden claimed that hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and droughts have been getting worse. He cited losses of $145 billion in weather damages from last year. He noted that 100 million Americans are currently under heat alerts. Citing these data, the president declared that "climate change is literally an existential threat." He vowed to use his executive powers in the coming weeks to combat the threat of climate change.
Average temperatures in the contiguous United States have increased by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900. And unabated climate change could cause significant problems for humanity before the end of this century.
But are hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and droughts in the U.S. getting worse? University of Colorado climate change policy researcher Roger Pielke, Jr. notes that the number of landfalling hurricanes hitting the continental United States has been falling since 1900. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report observes that the annual average number of tornadoes in the U.S. has remained constant since the 1970s, although their location appears to be shifting from the Great Plains toward the mid-South. The president is right that wildfires have burned larger areas in recent years, although longer-term data show the area burnt by wildfires in the first half of the 20th century was similar to today's extent. With respect to droughts, the Southwestern U.S. is experiencing its worst drought in 12 centuries. However, the Environmental Protection Agency reports that since 1900 "the overall trend has been toward wetter conditions" nationally.
What about the $145 billion in weather damages last year? Pielke notes that figure is about the average to be expected given the increase in infrastructure and housing exposed to weather events. He adds that the overall trend in global weather losses as percent of global GDP has been falling since 1990.
Biden noted the site that the former power plant is now being used to manufacture the high-tech subsea cables that will connect the offshore Vineyard Wind project to the electrical grid on land. He also noted that the Brayton coal-fired plant's generation capacity was once 1,500 megawatts and supplied electricity to one in five homes in New England. That would amount to nearly 1.2 million homes, assuming the president's figures are accurate. Accounting for fickle breezes, the 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project is slated to generate enough energy to power 400,000 homes.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
so will you be the Reason author who mans up and says he's full of shit?
Bailey?
LOL
Bailey is a full blown climate apocalyptist tranny.
I know I know ... people can change?
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (neh-02) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk
He used to actually question it before trump.
The article provides some good info that extreme weather events are NOT increasing, so good on him for that.
But he also presents this blatantly false canard:
unabated climate change could cause significant problems for humanity before the end of this century.
Bullshit !!!
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
.
Reading this article:>>>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
His conversion from skeptic to moderate AGW believer happened well before Trump.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report observes that the annual average number of tornadoes in the U.S. has remained constant since the 1970s, although their location appears to be shifting from the Great Plains toward the mid-South
Fucking Southerners stealing the hard working and decent Mid-Westerner's tornadoes. How will our hardworking Kansans get to Oz?
Climate should be unchanging. Why won't you anti science realists admit this.
How about weather that never changes? 75F and sunny, everywhere all the time!
Weather changes. Biden also said it rains oil in Delaware, and apparently it gave him cancer.
Then there's
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1549926405751939073?t=oL1ZMcicfr2bjZm7hA7tKw&s=19
PETE BUTTIGIEG, condescendingly:
I’m just “astonished” that people “really struggle to let go” of their cars and pickup trucks in favor of electric vehicles only
[Video]
That one is CLEARLY in touch with normal people outside his bubble.
The government class are incapable of understanding the problems of real people face, and seem quite proud of it.
Let’s see everyone is turning their AC on and I hear in the news that it is straining the grid.
Yah we should all get electric vehicles that will help.
Exactly. The idea that government can keep the planet at some pre-determined 'optimal temperature' is fucking laughable.
It was colder back then, but warmer than when Ron wrote
"Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths
"How will our hardworking Kansans get to Oz?"
US24 takes ya right through Wamego.
The worse part of his remarks was his claiming he had to do this because Congress, the Senate especially, refuses to pass his agenda. But remember folks it's Republicans who are a threat to Democracy.
We can ALL be threats to democracy if we just believe in ourselves.
The executive branch itself is a threat to democracy, since it wields enormous power and is run by just one person. That's true of Biden, Trump, Obama, etc. Yes Team Blue is full of shit when they try to claim that they are the 'guardians of democracy'. They want to rig the rules just like the other team does.
More so, as a good portion of Trump's EO's were taking away power from the executive branch that Congress never gave it or ending unratified treaties.
Why do you insist in pretending you have no team when it is so obvious to everyone?
Are you prepared to condemn the Biden presidency and assert that he’s senile?
Except the problem isn't Biden's senility, or even just his administration.
It's the mass psychosis of the left and their support for the globalist cabal's malicious, totalitarian, evil war against normal people through the Great Reset.
It's a much, much bigger problem than a shitty president and administration. Condemning Biden proves nothing.
Rather, it misses the point.
>>"climate change is literally an existential threat."
for fuck's sake. literally existential
What's a "figurative" existential threat, I wonder?
A hot pocket so hot that even God couldn't eat it.
Not even the left of the left wing think climate is important. It ranks near the bottom of major issues that left-wing voters worry about.
Said another way, pay attention to what they do, not what they say.
I hope some day we can reach a point where there is some level of expectation between what people say and what they do.
now that words mean little I suspect we are far from that point
Climate change bullshit is the greatest threat to liberty that has ever existed.
Out of interest, can you formulate the scientific basis for the climate change hypothesis?
Can you? Mr Smart Guy.
Government subsidy of science. Anything subsidized grows beyond what the market had settled on, bringing in the outright hucksters, and providing an easy path to fame for the eager beavers who have more ambition than skill.
Case in point-50 years ago, Nixon declared war on cancer and drugs. Despite billions (trillions?) spent on research and prisons, both cancer and drugs are still going strong. Climate will be no exception-we can electrify everything, eat only vegan, and plant a trillion trees and 50 years from now, it will still be hotter.
Don’t know that Nixon had anything to do with it, but cancer treatment is radically better than 50 years ago.
Actually SRG, out of interest, can you formulate any scientific basis for the climate change hypothesis?
Yes. But I asked Nardz first and he hasn't provided one.
I doubt you can. And actually, even though I disagree with Nardz on several things, he probably has a better grasp of it then you do. Based on your reply I'm betting you can't but want to act like you could.
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. CO2 levels have risen significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
3. This increase is due to human activity.
4. Hence one can hypothesise that air temperatures at or near Earth's surface will rise.
Arrhenius's GW paper 1896
(As a corollary, if you want to predict that despite #1, #2 and #3, temperatures will not rise, you have to supply a mechanism by which the effect of the rise in CO2 will be offset. "Disbelief" is not a mechanism.)
So what is offsetting steady temperature rise now? Why isn't temperature rise uniform across the globe? What mechanisms were responsible for prior warming and cooling periods? Is a one-factor control knob analysis a reasonable approach to a vastly complex system? What is the temperature going to be one month from now in Nashville, Tennessee?
Problem is you take a basic concept and apply such basic concept to a almost unimaginably large and complex system. It's like only using addition to try and figure out satellite orbits and trajectories. Sure, addition is involved, but there are numerous other factors and mathematical processes involved.
And that's a one dimensional analysis of an incredibly complex system that we don't understand very well at all. Yes, it's plausible. But no one has yet come up with a working model of it that makes any useful predictions.
That is not a slam dunk argument for anything. It's one part of an exploration of something that is extremely complex.
First, I met the ask - unlike Nardz. Second, that simplistic approach provides a basis, no more. And yet people like Nardz can't even get that far.
Third, But no one has yet come up with a working model of it that makes any useful predictions.
Really? https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Or are you going to weasel about the meaning of "useful"?
AGW is a failed hypothesis as the models based on AGW are spectacularly wrong, and the most accurate model (still weak) completely omits the impact of co2.
Yeah, you got the 9th grade level understanding. Good for you. Also, not everyone who disagrees with your solution is denying climate change. But what else would I expect, from someone with such a simplistic world view?
You climate change totalitarians keep whining about CO2 in the atmosphere and creating destructive policies intended to limit it. But CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere, with anthropogenic contribution estimated at roughly 33% of that (so .01% of the atmosphere is anthropogenic CO2). Earth's current atmospheric CO2 comes in around 400 ppm. Plant life starts dying off en masse at around 180 ppm, while CO2 doesn't become toxic until 4,000+ ppm.
And you use this flimsy, scientifically idiotic theory to claim power over humanity and destroy our way of life. Launch yourself into the fucking sun if you're sincerely worried about climate change, because the sun is going to dictate earth's climate regardless of your feelings or totalitarian actions.
Define "toxic". You breathe it in at 400 ppm, you breathe it out at 40,000 ppm, and you can breathe into a paper bag for a few breaths without any problems, each breath adding to the concentration. Recovery is instant on withdrawal even at total exposure.
Does oxygen deprivation equate to CO2 "toxicity"? If it does, water is toxic too, so we should be limiting its availability. In reality, there's no lethal dose for either, so they are effectively non-toxic at any exposure level.
Yes, there is a lethal dose of water.
https://www.healthline.com/health/how-much-water-can-kill-you#prevention
You aren't that smart. Water toxicity is a thing, and people die of it every year. CO2 toxicity is also a thing. Toxicity is the level that you take in that kills more than 50% of adults, LD50. Every substance has an LD50. At 4,000 ppm your body can no longer deliver oxygen, i.e. it becomes toxic. Fuck, don't act smart if you don't even understand basic science.
Regardless, we're much, much, MUCH closer to killing off plant life with reduced CO2 emissions than we are to increasing CO2 to toxic levels.
But the point about toxicity is merely for perspective. The climate cultists (bullshitters) don't talk about hard numbers because, as we see above, hard numbers don't paint the picture of required reduction of CO2 emissions. All the anti-energy, economy killing, misanthropic policies are intended to reduce CO2 emissions.
It's a straight up lie used to justify attacking fossil fuels and destroying normal people's way of life.
If anything, we should fear atmospheric CO2 falling below levels needed to sustain plant life - just like if we should fear temperature changes, it's becoming colder rather than warmer that would be cause for concern.
My primary point, and why I list the atmospheric CO2 stats, is that CO2 is a red herring. It's too small a proportion of the atmosphere to have a dramatic impact on global temperatures and climate via man made intervention, either intentional or not. The real point, and only significant effect, of anti emissions policies is to destroy the cheap energy economy and our standard of living.
A secondary point is that life thrives in warm temperatures, struggles and/or ceases in cold. The planet has been much warmer in previous periods of human history, and those periods same humanity prosper to greater extent than others.
The modern climate change movement is a malevolent, destructive, evil scam.
We have to starve people now so that people don't starve in the future when the planet is warmer and we can grow more food!
That is the most generous possible interpretation.
The more cynical, and likely correct, interpretation is they have a deep resentment for anyone not as miserable and inherently deficient as themselves.
Yeah. I was just making fun of mr science there.
If the atmosphere was 40,000 ppm, you'd be dead in minutes. Not too much longer if it was 4000. It's not tricky to define toxic levels of CO2. The toxicity isn't from asphyxiation. It's from acidifying your blood.
So you have no fucking idea other than argument from consequences.
Bitch, put a fucking bullet in your head before someone else has to. You're an evil piece of shit who either ignored or didn't understand a single portion of my response. Get the fuck back to your lemmings at leftist sites and the typical circle jerk of repeating talking points to each other you worthless clumps of cancer so enjoy.
Fuck off, peasant.
So whitty. How droll.
If the policies put forward are likely to kill huge numbers of people, then consequences should be of primary importance.
I see you don’t understand the scientific process or how a hypothesis works.
Sorry, Tony has you beat on climate alarmism, maybe stick to whatever it is you think you’re good at.
... and the ClimateProgs TOTALLY ignore the 11/22 yr Sunspot cycle ...
Run sunspot, run
They don't.
Really?
So ... Do tell us about the historical effects of the Sunspot cycle on "Climate Change" and then show the "unmanipulated" data on Anthropogenic effects.
A model based on sunspots alone controlling the earths temperature is better than any of the co2 dependent models. Not correct, but better than all the AGW models.
The scientific basis for climate change, like for COVID, and gender dysphoria, and rain forests, and baby seals, uses Marxism, emotional reasoning, and political activism, to determine the narrative that will most likely terrify non-technical science students (and their professors) and get more alt-left candidates elected.
Baby seals have a scientific basis?
Who knew?
What about black velvet paintings of Elvis?
So you're ignorant of actual science as well.
This low IQ cultist has yet to produce a single sentence that has anything close to scientific information. It's just pathetic and insecure lashing out at those who expose the idiocy of his religion.
You haven't provided and science but ridicule those who don't agree with you. I doubt you understand actual science but are all for scientism.
He is rather ridiculous.
Try me, peasant.
Funny how you're bleating about science yet none of you cite any science sources.
You haven't either. You have cited journalists, not peer reviewed science. I am also willing to bet my science education is far more impressive than yours. How many peer reviewed journals have you published in?
It's kind of funny how you are providing a good example for the many polls and studies that find that climate change skeptics tend to be much more scientifically informed than climate change adherents.
I am sure that there are climate change adherents who think it's happening because as far as they are aware - and are right to be aware - that the vast majority of climatologists think it's happening, without knowing the underlying science, and i am sure that there are "sceptics" and denialists who have acquired just enough scientific knowledge to justify their prejudice against climate change.
This doesn't change the science itself, of course.
My comment had nothing to do with changing the science. It was predicated on how well people actually understand the science and how their prejudices, like yours, fill in the narratives spaces of that lack of knowledge.
Out of interest, can you formulate the scientific basis for the climate change hypothesis?
No.
Because there isn't one.
How can there be any scientific validity to an hypothesis that began arguing the precise opposite of what it does today while prescribing the exact same remedies?
And when those remedies fall in line with the global control asperations of an ideology whose precepts deny it the strength to win by force of arms or weight of action the primacy it wins in the mediocre minds that infect academia.
There IS no 'climate change hypothesis'-- only another leftist scheme to gain power.
There is an hypothesis, but it is a failed hypothesis because it’s predictions have been completely wrong.
Good Kid Productions, Heather MacDonald on COVID hysteria.
In time, when some states suffer calamities owing to climate change, those states whose politicians opposed climate change measures should not receive Federal disaster relief on the simple grounds of volenti non fit injuria. In fact, let's get those politicians to pledge now, like the Norquist tax pledge, to oppose relief for their states.
In time, based on the most likely models you're going to have to wait over a century to reap their tears. Idiot.
200 years from now when the temperature is 1.09 degrees warmer, shrike's going to be gloating.
Also, if you look at the data, the US has cut emissions faster than any other country, without the government forcing us to. In fact, the government is keeping us from cutting them even quicker, by making the process to build new reactors so costly and cumbersome. You think that the American people will stand by while you replace 1,500 megawatt plants for 800 megawatt intermittent wind mills? Or pay $5/gal gas (and all the other associated price increases that accompany this) so that we have to depend on China for batteries for electric vehicles most people can't afford? If you do you're a special kind of stupid.
You left out the actual value of per capita emissions - cuttting from a very high number may still be a very high number.
Derp!
We've cut per Capita more than any other country too. When you account for productivity, our emissions are fairly small. The truth is that Europe had smaller numbers per Capita only because they are far less productive.
Ah, accomplishment towards your claimed goal really isn't your goal, now is it?
Nothing to do with solving the problem, you just like to righteously complain about the problem and condemn those deplorable non-believers.
Fuck off slaver.
Or the federal gov should not provide disaster relief at all to any state
And those of us who recognize the hoax and don't want to waste money on it, can we get a tax rebate right now and avoid all the so-called "benefits" 78 years from now?
Pretty please?
*check's UA's list of standard responses*
You'll make a good slave.
Naw, he's too ready to dish out poor sarcasm. No slave master wants a yappy wise-ass hanging around.
*recheck's UA's list of standard responses*
How about - Did you fly directly from Stupidville or did you have to change planes in Chicago?
Who flies delta. Yuck.
I don't know, bur I've been told I'm pretty fly.
For a white guy?
How do you propose we determine what’s due to climate change? And who will make the decisions? Will it be experts in the field? Like the ones that said to avoid touching anything because you could get COVID from surfaces? Or the ones that said vaccines would prevent COVID?
No, he just plans to get the "right" experts to make all the decisions and take all of your money. Problem is we just need the right people to do it. That's the ticket!
I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.
Fuck Joe Biden
Average temperatures in the contiguous United States have increased by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.
Just look at this fucking graph. Look how it's relatively stable, with plenty of blue (below the baseline) mixed with red for the vast majority of the graph...up until around 1990, when Gore was pushing his Global Marshall Plan. And tell me the EPA is not playing games with this.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/20/the-end-of-an-era-vale-patrick-michaels/
Arbitrary endpoints are one of the most powerful tools of statistical manipulators.
Wattsupwiththat? Are you kidding? You should check out their response to Richard Muller's findings.
The Muller study , paid for by the same folks who fund reason, found that Watts was out to lunch in claiming warming was an artifact of badly sited weather stations , because the whole global temperature measurement ensemble was rising- countryside and urban heat islands alike.
Watts is a pontificating TV weatherman, not a scientist of any sort.
Pure BS. Heat islands are absolutely proven. The real crime is that the AGW crowd has selectively removed data from stations that show declining or static temperatures. Hence Hansen’s recent ‘data’ show a steeper slope for Temp increase than those he published in 1988. The data have changed, and not surprisingly the correlation coefficient of the changes applied is 0.998, I.e. they were adjusted to meet a target, not for any scientific reason.
And you should learn to read and understand data, but your posting history here tells me you won’t and you’ll still talk like a condescending douche canoe.
I believe it was Anthony Watts who found that if you compared non urban test stations to urban ones, the warming is about 60% greater for urban zones. So much if the global climate warming is from urban heat islands badly accounted for in models.
Also the discrete points of the stations is still way too sparse for an accurate climate change representation, especially over water.
Everyone should follow WattsUpWithThat.
And some of those weather stations are way out of spec as to position, construction, equipment, and maintenance. There was one in Algeria, I think, which had reported a new record high temperature; the media were crowing about global warming proof, and WUWT showed that weather station was on asphalt at an airport near a jet turn around. Others were right next to or right above air conditioners and other heat sources, or at ground level, etc. WUWT should be required reading for Congress Critters.
The one in my home town is on the middle of campus next to a campus vehicle parking lot.
https://wattsupwiththat.wpcomstaging.com/2007/07/25/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-24/?amp=1
So the clear solution to the existential threat is to eliminate urban centers?
Good-bye DC, LA, NY, etc.!
Just finished reading the book How the Little Ice Age Shaped History, despite our warming, we still are cooler than during the medieval warming period that ended in the 13th Century.
Olive trees were grown in Italy and Greece at higher altitudes during the Roman Warming Period than now.
Cattle were raised in Greenland during the Medieval Warming period. They aren't now.
On and on, a ton of practical evidence for those who don't cover their eyes.
Retreating glaciers continue to uncover forests.
Yes, there is one in Norway, I think, which uncovered an entire forest, complete with fallen trees still next to their stumps (so obviously not dragged around by the glacier), and showing rings for 300 years old -- a forest had grown for 300 years below the snow line, and is only now being uncovered!
Tons and tons of practical refutation of this global warming hoax.
In the book I just finished it gives quotes from diaries and journals kept by people living in the Swiss, Italian, Austrian and French Alps describing glaciers advancing so quickly in the 16 and 17th centuries that the swallowed villages practical overnight.
England's vineyards were so plentiful and productive that it threatened France's wine industry.
Cereal crops were also grown in Greenland. Scandinavia saw such a population explosion, due to more abundant cereal crops, that it lead to the Viking Age. This period also saw the emergent of huge agricultural communities in North America, with the two most famous being the Mississippian Cultures and the Anasazi cultures. Maize was being grown in the high Andes, contributing the the early development of the Incan cultures. Ireland and Scotland both also saw population explosions, while Iceland was growing cereal crops with enough excess that they could establish a profitable trade with mainland Europe and the English Isles. Greenland maintained a year round cod industry. Cod still don't overwinter in Greenland waters today, they're to cold.
The ClimateGate crowd including most of the bad actors (Mann, Schmidt, Santer, Jones, etc.) stated they needed to dissappear the MWP.
Scotland's vineyards not so much , as there were none.
Now there are.
First the vineyards almost reached Scotland, second the vineyards in Scotland today are the result of breeding cold resistant varieties that didn't exist in the 14th century.
Liberal preferences not swaying voters is the real emergency.
Ironically the cure for the climate change emergency has caused actual emergencies in Ghana, Sri Lanka, The Netherlands, and soon a global good crisis.
“…literally an existential threat.” Does even one scientist think man’s actual existence is threatened by climate change?
Not even liberal Democrats do.
Not anyone who has actually read any of the reports, but those that go by the headlines do, because the headlines always trumpet the worst case, and the least likely outcomes, based on unrealistic data. The people putting this stuff out there know that, that's why their aim is to keep warming to 2°C because that is the most likely outcome even without doing anything, so they can claim success.
Also look at their goal, to keep temperatures to under 2°C above pre-inrustrial temperatures, meaning the end of the 18th century. In other words their aim is to keep temperatures 2°C above the coldest century during the Little Ice Age. However, temperatures in the 12th and 13th Century were actually higher than today based on the archeological evidence. By as much as 1.5-2°C. The Little Ice Age came on fairly suddenly, with temperatures plunging over 2-3°C in a matter of a decade. Thus their nonsense about the danger being to quick and not natural really isn't supported, as the Earth had experienced sudden climate shifts, that then last for centuries.
It's completely ridiculous. The species which evolved in Africa and has figured out how to live literally everywhere on the planet where it's remotely possible for us to live is existentially threatened by a slightly warmer climate. Yeah, sounds legit.
"the Southwestern U.S. is experiencing its worst drought in 12 centuries"
Well yes but that has more to do with the people in those areas sucking every single drop out of any and all water sources and pissing it directly into the Pacific ocean. It's also one thing that exacerbates wildfires. Trees can't get the water they need because all the water has been taken by people for their lawns, orchards, etc. and they out compete the underbrush for the little water that is available leaving behind a tinderbox of fuel. Trees also help generate rainfall so SoCal deforesting by fire and pavement is only compounding the problem.
In short, cities are the main problem because asphalt is just painting the surface of the earth black causing excessive heating and the cleared trees limit the water supply. For some reason progressives love cities because they fail to recognize that cities are the problem.
California was always warned that it's growth was unsustainable. Los Angeles was a small, ranching community with little growth for most of it's history, because water resources were so limited. It's only by shipping water from vast distances away that Los Angeles could grow to its current size. Of course shipping water that far is also depleting that water from it's natural sources. Growing water heavy crops in California and Arizona also makes little sense. Central California is great land for cereals but fruits,vegetables and nuts are way to water intensive for the environment. Cotton and vegetable crops in Arizona are also extremely water intensive. They also hurt farmers in regions that these crops are better suited for, i.e. the southeast, that used to be the largest producers of these commodities.
California is next to the ocean.
Ever heard of desalination?
Would not rising food prices due to inflation make desalination profitable?
Not even close. It is very expensive.
TRIGGER WARNING
Thread by conservation of mass skeptics follows
Desalination is energy intensive, and thus extremely expensive. Besides, you have to do something with the salt. Returning it to the ocean will mess with local estuaries. It could be sold. But brine is often toxic, and not completely dry, so it would need to be further processed before it could be used for anything.
Additionally for every gallon of liter of seawater processed, you end up with 420 mls of 'potable' water and 580 mls of brine. And that's using the most effective plants, most don't achieve this. A better source of water would be using recycled sewage to water lawns, gardens and crops, however this would require huge infrastructure projects. As long as the plant is operating correctly the water is actually clean enough to drink, however, socially I think this would not be acceptable. Using it to water plants is a good usage for this water, rather then current disposal methods (dumping it).
It still wouldn't be enough but it would better.
Yeah, when I lived in Cali we had a gray water system where the sink, shower, dishwasher, & washing machine drains topped up a tank that refilled the toilet tanks and fed the outdoor faucets. It's amazing how much of the gray water still gets dumped into the sewer with a small lawn and modern toilets that don't need to be flushed twice. It did slightly lower the water bill but it would still have taken decades to pay off - glad it was installed before we bought the place.
Gray water really is an untapped resource, especially in dry areas. The town I grew up in actually used it to irrigate an adjacent field of hay, that farmers bid on to cut. So, the town made money on it.
And you could get two cuttings off it in North Idaho, where it generally doesn't rain a lot after mid June.
They have sea salt plants in Cali so instead of just evaporating the water off into the atmosphere condense it back out. It's also not that energy intensive using the right technology. This looks promising but I wonder if they couldn't do more or less continuous pumping with multiple dual acting pistons that would be analogous to rectified 3 phase AC.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2021/Q2/breakthrough-in-reverse-osmosis-may-lead-to-most-energy-efficient-seawater-desalination-ever.html
Here's the commission's latest folly.
California, they rather steal water from other states. I've seen proposals in the past two weeks to divert water from the Columbia and the Mississippi both. I'm sure taking water from the Columbia will fly with the greenies and tribes in Washington, Oregon and Idaho (endangered salmon and steelhead anyone?).
Building major cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix in the desert, without major sources of potable surface water is the least sustainable thing we've ever done.
You'd think that but good luck with the meanie greenie people in charge of their coastal commission. They've done it again recently just a few months ago. Until the commission members are replaced with desal friendly people, nothing will change. Given they're not elected but appointed by the governor, nothing will change. Since Cali isn't likely to elect a fundamentally different governor, nothing will change and they'll never have water.
Is he building nukes?
Brandon didn't assert anything.
His handlers gave him some copy to recite.
Emergencies are something that happens fast.
This is no emergency.
All part of the plan to make gas cost at least $7 a gallon.
Emergency panic about change? Isn't that the core behavior of, ahem, conservatives?
I was thinking more Flemish cottage textile workers.
Everything I read about climate change is either apocalyptic or obvious lies paid for by the fossil fuel industry. I live in Texas where it’s been nightmarishly hot since May and where our electric grid is held together by prayer and chewing gum. (I used to be a utilities lawyer back in the 90’s before renewables were a thing and the lack of transmission capacity and winterizing of natural gas plants was a problem then. We’ve had 40 years to fix this so we deserve every miserable day.)
Anyway, I am genuinely terrified for my children and the planet. I would like to stop being terrified. Can anyone provide actual decent information on this subject that is not fossil fuel company propaganda or “lol they said global cooling in the 1970s?” I’ve read Lomberg and his argument is that we’re still ruining the planet but can adapt so get used to world filled with smog, garbage, rats and cockroaches and without any birds or fish or wildlife or fruit trees.
Is there any comforting information available?
If you read the actual IPCC reports the most likely scenario is about 2°C rise from pre industrial levels, so about what temperatures were like in the 13th century, when they had vineyards in England and cereal crops in Greenland and Iceland. Additionally, warmer air holds more moisture (humidity is the amount of water saturation at the air temperature, the higher the air temperature the more water air holds) which leads to more moisture. So, might mean slightly higher coastal water levels and more localized flooding along rivers (which is actually not necessarily a bad thing), but better growing conditions across the plains. The current drought in the Southwest is a once in a millennium event but it will eventually resolve itself. Temperatures were warmer six centuries ago and the southwest was much moister. Some specialist species may go extinct but generalist species will adapt quickly. Evolutionarily speaking specialist species don't last very long, they too easily impacted by local condition changes. Look at the ESA and you will find almost every species listed is a specialist species while the species of least concern are almost universally generalists.
Thank you. I think this is the first time someone has answered my questions on this with actual information and not some variant of ‘die liberal scum’ or ‘we’re hopelessly screwed.’
I get really depressed at how nearly every subject from music to science has become a culture war skirmish. I think nuclear power plants are great ideas and also that electric cars are good. I believe strongly in conservation and being responsible, which now in some circles makes me Leon Trotsky. Supporting electric charging stations at Walmart is the first step to liquidation of the kulaks!
It should be possible to discuss things using facts? Maybe?
There are many practical solutions that can reduce emissions like nuclear power and even things that can be done to cool the climate very quickly while we develop better technologies to reduce emissions. These would not require us to sacrifice much though, which is the problem the “climate justice” crowd has with them and why the left hates them. They want us to pay/suffer for our original carbon sin.
“Terrified”? Lol. Your screen name checks out, Karen.
The worst environmental degradation happens in the poorest places. Caring about the environment for its own sake is a luxury. The best way to avoid the garbage, smog, etc. that you fear is to increase wealth and prosperity around the world. And to do that the poorest parts of the world need the cheapest energy they can get. Even if that does lead to a little bit warmer climate, people with some wealth who don't have to worry about mere survival all the time will demand clean air and water and a pleasant natural environment.
It seems that none of the climate denialists here can actually explain why the climate change hypothesis in the first place, despite the fact that it is very easy to explain. And it also seems that they think it was cooked up recently despite its going back at least as far as Svente Arrhenius - who was not an American Marxist, fwiw.
Youre an absolute moron
Not an argument.
My guess is you simply do not know the scientific basis of the hypothesis, and, like Marxists of times past, think that everything is political.
My arguments are above, yours are non existent, nitwit.
Or we aren't actually denying it, but rather pointing out the sky is falling chicken littles are pushing what even the science says is the least likely, worse case scenarios, and the more realistic models, based on actual data trends, rather than extrapolated uncontrolled hyperbolic growth of GHG emissions, demonstrate that current rates of warming are completely capable of being mitigated through technology and may even have some benefits (see the medieval warming period for example, which was actually warmer than what we are today, and closer to what temperatures are forecasted in the most reliable models by the end of the century). We also are for curbing pollution via free markets rather than government fiats that destroy the working class, and most directly impact minority communities and are basically the new Jim Crow on steroids. Wealthy whites can afford it, but everyone else gets fucked. Additionally, we are for proven technology such as nuclear rather than inconsistent and unreliable sources like solar and wind. We also understand that currently our grid can't handle going all electric for vehicles, and it's highly dubious if we even have the technology to do so, or the resources to do so.
For an outline of how these green programs increase racial divisions and hurt minorities the most I will post this article by well known civil rights and environmental lawyer Jennifer Hernandez:
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-14-summer-2021/green-jim-crow
Pointing out that your emperor has no clothes isn't the same as denying there is something going on. We just disagree adamantly with your solutions and your fear mongering, which is based upon the least reliable, least likely scenarios.
Using the high emissions (higher than we have now) RCP 8.5 scenarios is one example of bullshit from the Warmer community.
Here's the thing. Not a single "sceptical"/denialist model of climate has been right. Bayesian reasoning alone should tell you that anthropogenic climate change is real.
And yes, many people are still denying it. Also, if someone spends years denying it, I'm not going to give them too much credence when they say, ok it's happening but it won't be anything to worry about.
current rates of warming are completely capable of being mitigated through technology
Yes. But where are the conservative/right-wing advocates for such tech? If anything, they're fighting it. Was it Florida which attempted to impose costs for solar sources feeding into the electricity grid?
We also are for curbing pollution via free markets rather than government fiats
Who's the "we"? And why don't you explain how the free market can curb pollution? Now one can curb pollution by polluter-pays laws and forcing companies to stop externalising costs but the axiomatic "free marketeers" who think that these steps violate free markets and so must not be implemented might whine and resist. The free-market idea is an heuristic (if you're smart) or an axiom (if you're an idiot). Choose.
You keep waxing righteous about a problem, but offer nothing other than platitude and emptiness.
That's the problem with the climate change issue. Assholes like you who use it to preach a religion without any grasp of the reality of life. The reason climate change is an issue is because there isn't a solution. It isn't a binary subject, but people like you like to create such a false dichotomy.
This issue is huge, complex, has many moving parts, and is based on science that is truly in its infancy with huge unknowns.
But that's not your real issue, is it? You don't care about solutions, or the problem for that matter. What you care about is the righteous political position in order to feel good about yourself while demeaning those moronic "deniers." It's about bullying, not actual principles.
Here's the thing, none of the AGW models have accurately been able to predict conditions either, especially when they try to model previous warming.
Not true. Stop lying
Except, he's no lying.
Citation that I'm lying?
How the free market can curb pollution? It already has, changing from coal to natural gas, building more efficient ICE etc. The dirty secret of the Clean air and water acts is that pollution was already declining because industry was responding to public outcry. That the majority of decrease in pollution covered by those acts were already occuring due to voluntary methods undertaken by industry in response to their customers preferences. My parents grew up in a lead and silver mining region. Prior to the 1950s the mines dumped waste directly into the river. The community (most of which worked for the mines) got fed up with it, the mine owners responded, stopped dumping tailings into the river and built settling ponds. You couldn't drink or swim in the river, and the fish had nearly died. Now fish have returned, it's safe to swim in and drink from (though many still don't because of taboos that evolved before the clean-up). In other words industry responded to the needs and wants of their employees and associated communities. The free market worked. The same with AGW, which companies have been spending billions developing technology to reduce GHG for decades, regardless of government mandates. Energy companies would love to build more nuclear, which would greatly reduce GHG, but the government makes the process so unnecessarily difficult they don't. Additionally, industries like cattle have reduced GHG emissions tremendously since the 1970s, all by improving efficiency through applied science (most notably nutrition and genetics, argue with me on this, as I have a MS in Animal Science). We also have reduced the size of the herd substantially. So we are producing more beef and milk with fewer head and less inputs then ever. All through the free market.
It wasn't the free market which got rid of HFCs. It was international agreement.
Hahahahahahahahahaha
You mean HFC that were already being phases out by manufacturers before the international agreement? Try again dipshit. The industries had already spent billions researching and converting their manufacturing before the agreement was reached. Many were advertising HFC free appliances before the agreement was created. I doubt you were even alive during this period. I remember this debate quite well, and remember industry pledging to phase out HFC before the UN meeting on it even was proposed.
I also gave multiple examples of historic and current adaptations driven by the free market, you came up with one counter example, that wasn't even correct.
Read John Christy’s evaluation of the climate models. ALL predict warming that is more than twice the relative error ( standard deviation) too hot. And with time they only get worse as the earth heats too slowly.
Moreover, these models are completely at odds with historical data before about 1920, I.e. run them back in time and their predictions are even more absurdly at variance with historical records.
They are all crap.
When you wrote this, did you think it was a sentence?--
And 'denialist'. You love that word, yet cannot explain what is being denied.
Is the climate changing? Yes, of course, that is it's nature. And every creature that lives on the Earth has an impact on the global climate so of course there is anthropogenic climate change.
What are we 'denying'?
Your 'solution'.
What is your solution? Implement a global, centrally controlled managed economy and world state so that climate action can be fast and decisive. Have all work collectively towards the greater good of a renewable, sustainable society.
Sorry. No.
What is being denied is that the climate is changing owing to human activity., Got it now, peasant?
So, this one time climate has changed and is humanity's fault. All the other times, not so much.
Ah, the fallacy of unique causes. A causes B, therefore C cannot cause B.
You're really not thinking, just reacting.
Not even remotely. Nice attempt at deflection though.
If you want to show how humans are causing climate change now, but weren't responsible for climate changes prior, you have to demonstrate what factors are at play or not at play that make this particular time different than prior times.
It's called establishing some level of a control so you can properly assess the impact of single variable changes. You know, something climate science is horrible at doing.
Humans are producing more CO2!!!1!1!1!!
No, A causes B, just as it has forever. C is irrelevant.
An emergency is something that requires immediate action for something that is occurring at the present moment and is catastrophic.
Climate Change, (previously know as Global Warming, previously know as Global Cooling, previously know as Over Population) is not an emergency, but rather theories. They should not be declared emergencies because there isn't clear evidence of catastrophic results.
There are theories, which are disputed. Further even if there was clear evidence, there isn't any solid actions to resolve the situation without looking at a small aspect of the overall picture and causing unintended results.
Regardless of the belief, their isn't an honest assessment. Both sides are delusional, for all the talk about science, there seems to be more political science at play than real science.
Climate Change, (previously know as Global Warming, previously know as Global Cooling, previously know as Over Population
Stop lying, peasant. "Global cooling" was never a widespread idea even in the 70s, and the terms "global warming" and "climate change" were used largely interchangeably for years before Fred Luntz (a Republican), advised GWB et al (Republicans) to prefer the term "climate change" because it didn't sound as bad as "global warming".
Actually, global cooling was fairly widespread in the 70s.
Lying again. A few articles in magazines, a book or two and a few papers, nothing more.
LOL! Dude. If you have to resort to bogus "nuh uhs" to justify your position, then you may need to start reassessing your position.
It was so common that scholastic reader ran it as a front page article when I was in third grade in 1984.
You are younger than I thought. And wise beyond your years.
I recall global cooling being a seriously discussed topic when I was in HS and college in the 60’s and early 70’s, including in my Astronomy 102 class taught by Carl Sagan.
Your problem is that you are convinced no one who disagrees with you is capable of honest thought or knowledge. This is not the mind of someone who actually understands science, but rather suffers from scientism. You are completely incapable of critical thinking. You are more akin to those that ridiculed Lister and Pasteur, who ignored Snow, who resisted Jennings. Being open to knowledge, especially from those who don't agree with you, is the only path to understanding and knowledge. Science requires skepticism, especially of your own beliefs. Challenge is necessary. It isn't about building consensus but about building the best models. Yes, the earth is warming, yes GHG emissions most likely contribute to this, yes we should reduce dependence of fossil fuels. The difference is in how I view these dangers (in which I take the most likely outcome based on models for my risk assessment) and how I view we should address these issues. Improving gas milage changing regulations so that we regulate per volume of work or product created rather than gallon burned or head, removing burdensome, often counterproductive regulations that hamper non-fossil fuel industries like nuclear, and rare earth mining in the US. Drilling here rather than importing oil at much higher GHG emissions. It is going to take a bridge, can't be done overnight, and government mandates have never worked to create societal change. Government is always downstream of culture. All that happens when government forces change is people resist. They dig in.
Your other problem is you never try to persuade, you try to shame and browbeat people into prescribing to your solutions. That is not a winning strategy. it turns off even persuadable moderates. In other words you're a fundamentalist, as bad as any inquisitor in Spain.
So, Brandon lied about everything in his speech and renwable energy is inadequate to meet America's energy needs?
Big news.
"He also noted that the Brayton coal-fired plant's generation capacity was once 1,500 megawatts and supplied electricity to one in five homes in New England. That would amount to nearly 1.2 million homes, assuming the president's figures are accurate. Accounting for fickle breezes, the 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project is slated to generate enough energy to power 400,000 homes."
Well, that's ProgMath for ya ...
Would be more believable if President Biden Asserted 'Diaper Change Is An Emergency'.
Every single denialist and "sceptic" argument I've ever come across before is on display here, from "global cooling" to "climate is always changing" to "the models don't work". But any posting of recent peer-reviewed research? Hell, it's not as though peer review is even that high an evidentiary hurdle.
But I can tell you lot this. There is an industry subsector which relies for its profitability on getting the science right. Owing to the market in which the industry operates, companies within it are incentivised, not to promote climate change, nor to promote denialism, but to come up with the best possible climate prediction (and the effect on economies). They have their own climate scientists who are also thus incentivised. They have no market incentive to advocate on behalf of one side or the other.
Seems as if what they think on the subject might be relevant to a discussion on a site like this about climate change. You lot might not believe academics, but for-profit companies who need to know what is actually happening and what might happen, you should at least give some weight to.
Do you feel better now after lecturing this "lot" about how things really are? LOL!
I get a kick out of insecure people like you righteously lecturing over a chosen cause de jour that you have limited understanding of to feel better about yourself.
Your kind is so cliché anymore.
You haven't posted any peer reviewed studies either. You have called anyone, even those of us who don't deny climate change, denies and skeptics (note spelling). You have dismissed any solution that you disagree with. You have resorted to sophomoric insults rather than actual debate. You have demonstrated how close minded you are, and therefore incapable of actually understanding science, because you can't be close minded and practice or understand science. You haven't reputed any arguments just insisted you are correct. You have shown a complete lack of intellectual curiosity. You have shown a blind devotion rather than honest debate and discourse. In other words, you're not a scientist you're an ideologue. You also have shown a complete misunderstanding of science.
Take global cooling for instance. It was a thing in the late 1970s and early 80s, it was featured in Time, National Geographics and other mainstream magazines. It was lead stories often. But now certain activists try and gas light history. I doubt you were even alive at the time. You instead just accept the gas lighting, snug in your incorrect assumption that you are better educated than those who disagree with you. Smug in your false sense of superiority. As a result you demonstrate your ignorance, you celebrate it. Because even when you get something right, it isn't from actual knowledge but purely because you just regurgitate works that happen to agree with your mindset. You will never achieve wisdom because you fail to even entertain the notion that you aren't smarter than everyone else or that you may be wrong. A wise person, a truly smart person, is open to being wrong, and willing to listen open mindedly to those who disagree with them.
You haven't posted any peer reviewed studies either.
I wasn't the one making assertions originally. Do you want peer-reviewed studies? I can assuredly provide them. And after all I did post Arrhenius's original paper.
You have called anyone, even those of us who don't deny climate change, denies and skeptics (note spelling).
"Sceptic" is British English. I am British - and more recently, I became a naturalised (note spelling) American citizen.
You have dismissed any solution that you disagree with.
I never mentioned solutions. Stop making shit up.
There's a great line, you should have an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. That is and has always been my scientific position. And unlike you, I also find that Bayesian reasoning is useful.
Meanwhile, you evince none of the intellectual curiosity you seem to require of me. IT's obvious you don't believe in human caused climate change and it's also obvious your belief is not based on scientific grounds.
I concede that your ability to write diatribe is pretty good for a seppo, so well done.
OK, read Judith Curry’s blog. Great debate, heavy on data, international commentariat. She is really the gold standard in climate discussion.
"I'M MELTING........................", screams every leftard witch....
Pull out the Gov-Guns of National Socialism (i.e. Nazism) for imaginary B.S. /s