quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

I could care less about beachfront property or venice for that matter. The FACT of the matter is that we are basing the need for action off of sea level data from the late 1800's (the temperature rise is based on the same), a time in which the Earth was just beginning to emerge from a prolonged cold period. The temperature of the 1900's is not THE temperature of the Earth, it is simply the temperature it happened to be once we started to become really arrogant and believe that the current temperature that we found suitable to our needs is THE temperature that the Earth should remain. That is a false belief considering that the Earth has varied in temperature for it's entire existence. Mammoths once grazed where now only barren snow and ice remain, glaciers once carved rifts much further south than any human eye has ever seen, the Earth goes through cycles .

Absolutely, but they've happened on geological time. 800 years ago, before even the little Ice Age, Venice was importing spice from the Middle East. Now, it is about to be inundated.

quote:

Temperature and climate don't just *happen*. We know that bacteria and archea have enormous influence over the atmosphere. Because God made us steward of all the animals, it is only natural to assume that it might be possible for us to accidentally have the same influence over the atmosphere.

quote:


Whether or not you care about beachfront property or Venice, chances are that whatever industry you're involved in is connected in some way. Maybe you sell your wares to someone who works in a sand quarry or someone who fishes calamari, and their product gets shipped off to Venice. Or maybe you sell your wares to someone who makes beach umbrellas. The economy is more closely coupled than we think, and a loss of trillions of dollars worth of real estate and equipment would be harmful to everyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Absolutely, but they've happened on geological time. 800 years ago, before even the little Ice Age, Venice was importing spice from the Middle East. Now, it is about to be inundated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: its_GO_time

This is from a comment on the Ron Paul column, that sums up the government very well;

Step 1: Government creates a problem, purposefully, because it helps move the masses along according to "their" strategy to create "their" ultimate goal
Step 2: Government/President/Polticians/Ben Bernacke makes it sound like it was somone else who was at fault
Step 3: Then they give us some bogus explanation of how they are now going to now be our Savior
Step 4: They offer expressions of hope and how they care about all Americans
Step 5: Explain that they are "working hard and fast" to save us from (can't pass those bills fast enough, so fast they haven't the time to even read what they are passing along for the president to sign into law)
Step 6: Something so terrible (FEAR), we couldn't imagine how bad it would get if they don't hurry and pass some bill (that takes even more of the taxpayer's money!)
If you had a mechanic that not only couldn't repair your car, but actually made it worse, would you continue to seek their business? This is all about more control. Plain and simple. No solutions, here. Our children, grand-children, will think nothing of filling out forms, asking for permission from the government to sell their house, take a vacation(extra energy...tsk, tsk tsk), go to the bathroom, etc., just like years ago I was suprised to learn that there wasn't anything called welfare in my parent's childhood. July 4th is Independence Day; The day this garbage goes into law will be forever known as Dependence Day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
The fact is that nature has varied much more without us than it has with us and to attempt to blame it all on a few thousandths of a percent change to the atmosphere is stupid.

quote:

If we are incapable of acclimating and changing to fit a minor change like a 1.5ft sea level increase then we are in for a rude awakening the next time the Earth goes through a real climate change. We are in an interglacial period that, according to geologic history, won't last forever and if we are incapable of weathering a mild (on the scale of overall temperature swings) warming then we have much larger issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StephK

Is the argument over now that Algore has invoked Godwin's law?

Al Gore: Climate-Change Fight Like Battle Against Nazis

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

And for the record, we've varied by more like 0.1%. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from 250 ppm in the 18th century to about 370 today.

quote:

Humans can detect small changes in CO2- if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were to get to 1000, it would feel like a stuffy auditorium without much circulation to us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Yes, but this is on geological time. I mean, there is a supervolcano under Yellowstone that erupts every 700,000 years and would probably destroy Western civilization, but I'm not worried about it.

quote:

Well, the current bill is cutting investments in fossil fuels; I was willing to invest in coal four years ago, but not anymore. This is ultimately going to push investments towards nuclear and (if economically viable) wind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, the current bill is cutting investments in fossil fuels; I was willing to invest in coal four years ago, but not anymore. This is ultimately going to push investments towards nuclear and (if economically viable) wind.

Where in the bill does it encourage investment towards nuclear power?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Where in the bill does it encourage investment towards nuclear power?

quote:

Reduced CO2 Emissions->Reduced energy from coal-> More demand for non-CO2 generating nuclear (substitute product reduced/eliminated)-> economic profits for nuclear plants-> more investment in nuclear until market is at equilibrium again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

- how does the bill address these hurdles?

quote:

I had a similar question regarding the bill when i saw your post. I think more could be accomplished by allowing those who would seek to produce energy by nuclear power to more easily build plants. Who is going to build plants? I would assume it will be power companies who will be hurt by the increase in cost of doing business so would require a whole lot of investment to afford new nuclear plants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I had a similar question regarding the bill when i saw your post. I think more could be accomplished by allowing those who would seek to produce energy by nuclear power to more easily build plants. Who is going to build plants? I would assume it will be power companies who will be hurt by the increase in cost of doing business so would require a whole lot of investment to afford new nuclear plants.

Which would in turn seem to suggest if the Obama admin. and the Dems were serious about dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, they would be pushing for lowering the requirements for building Nuke. power plants, and /or subsidizing the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well nuclear energy has been around (and proven as a viable energy source) for almost 50 years now, even when oil prices were prohibitively high - the reason it hasn't been utilized more in the US is because of opposition from the left and government requirements that make building nuclear power plants nearly impossible - how does the bill address these hurdles?

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Still waiting to hear how the current bill will specifically change this?

Well, the current bill is cutting investments in fossil fuels; I was willing to invest in coal four years ago, but not anymore. This is ultimately going to push investments towards nuclear and (if economically viable) wind.

quote:

The vast majority of predictions on sea level rise that i find show a 5 CENTIMETER rise by 2100

The Harvard News Gazette reports that it is more likely to be between 1.5 feet and 4.5 feet. This is still much less scary than Al Gore's suggestions about what would happen if Greenland melted, but it is much more than your prediction of 5 cm.

A 1.5 foot sea level rise could take out 100 feet or more of beachfront. The ~6 inch sea level rise we've seen over the past 100 years is already threatening Venice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

If the majority believed in this GW stuff many beach communities would be seeing real estate prices sink like a rock and insurers would be ratcheting up home insurance premiums on these beachfront homes.

quote:

We already have a pretty good system. The regulatory approval process has been streamlined since the '80s; rather than separate construction and operating licenses, the NRC only issues a combined operating/construction license these days. Most utilities should now be able to flip the switch within a year or two of the plant's construction rather than the traditional 3-4 years it would take.

I am not sure how we can streamline the process much further without cutting corners on safety or taking away local community's rights to input in the process.

Perhaps one final improvement would be to allow the community to vote for a streamlined process that would bar outsiders without professional backgrounds related to nuclear safety from the hearings with some sort of supermajority. (Most communities with nuclear plants favor building new reactors in their town by 2-1 or higher margins) But in all honesty, Greenpeace and the other members of the anti-nuclear industry haven't put up the same kind of fight that they did 20 or 30 years ago. The review process has not been turned into a circus of people showing up in costumes or claiming that the nuclear plants are part of Big Brother's mind control program or asking what would happen if pi became 3.15.

The biggest hurdle that this legislation has cleared for the nuclear industry is the economics of building a $3 Billion nuclear plant when they can build an equivalent $1 Billion coal plant. The nuclear plant will now break even against the coal plant much sooner than it would have five years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
It's true we saw improvements under Bush in this regard, but Obama appears to be cutting subsidies to nuclear power plants; this would seem fairly contrary to his stated goals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

Some Dems support nuclear as a way to cut greenhouse gases; some Dems oppose it. All told, Dems pretty much all balance each other out on nuclear right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

If the majority believed in this GW stuff many beach communities would be seeing real estate prices sink like a rock and insurers would be ratcheting up home insurance premiums on these beachfront homes.

At a mere 5%/year discount rate, sea level change isn't a big deal to home prices yet, as it is several decades off. But in 20-30 years, I think home prices will see some impact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: letusreason

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

If the majority believed in this GW stuff many beach communities would be seeing real estate prices sink like a rock and insurers would be ratcheting up home insurance premiums on these beachfront homes.

At a mere 5%/year discount rate, sea level change isn't a big deal to home prices yet, as it is several decades off. But in 20-30 years, I think home prices will see some impact.

And yet the fact that Sea Level Is Not Level refutes you.

Take a chill trend will ya?

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

Some Dems support nuclear as a way to cut greenhouse gases; some Dems oppose it. All told, Dems pretty much all balance each other out on nuclear right now.

Which gives them a net useless contribution to actual solutions.

quote:



Which gives them a net useless contribution to actual solutions.