Kerry: Climate change = WMD

[sawakosadako]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/18/5422676/climate-change-is-weapon-of-mass-destruction-says-john-kerry

I just can't help not to laugh at this statements regardless that I totally agree with him. I mean they've attacked Iraq because of WMD. So I wonder if they're planning to attack its own country, since most of the obstacles to solve climate change comes from within (US).

[Burkingam]

It's an appeal to emotion and as such it plays right into the hand of those who think that global warming is all just a conspiracy to raise taxes.

Yet it's obvious that the large majority of people aren't gonna be convinced by rational arguments. Heck, even most people who accept that the earth is warming and that it's because of human activities could not describe accurately how the greenhouse effect works.

So it's obvious that those who want to act to mitigate the damage won't be able to accomplish anything if they rely solely on people being reasonable. People are gonna act like idiots like they always do. At the end, I have no idea if this kind of appeal to emotion does more good or more harm.

[Tanis]

I live in a nation where 1 in 4 polled don't understand that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

I live in a nation where, depending on the poll, a significant number of citizens either outright dismiss evolution, or are still 'waiting for the facts before they decide'.

I live in a nation where people would claim the sky is made of peanut butter, as long as it was written in their 'holy book'.

I live in a nation where being gay is a choice, but being a lard ass is genetics.

I live in a nation of fools.

[Burkingam]

I live in a nation where being gay is a choice, but being a lard ass is genetics.

I don't really see how this particular criticism makes sense. I assume that you mean because people have the choice to stuff their face or not I don't see how someone could argue without double standard that stuffing your face is a choice but not having sex with someone of your gender. You can argue whether or not being attracted by people of your gender is a choice, but then again, the same criteria would also apply to having the urge to stuff your face. Basically, the only difference I see is that stuffing your face doesn't necessarily makes you fat since there is also a difference in metabolism that makes it easier for some people to gain weight than others.

[sawakosadako]

I'm guessing what they're trying to prevent is for Indonesia chopping their trees with this WMD thing. TBH, It's just not right. I mean they could try to come up with a better plan like planting more trees in their own soil it certainly a lot better than trying to trade CO2 consumption whatever that is. I wonder if this article below is one of the reason why he said those thing in Indonesia.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-12/england-floods-blame-indonesia.html

I live in a nation of fools.

Aren't we all?

[jaybug]

It wasn't TL;DR for me, it was that man is an idiot, why pay attention to him, nobody else does?

Or we could blame it on the animal rights groups that are over in Japan going nuts over the dolphin slaughtering. They're getting all the press, and the winter is so cold, people forget about "global warming". OR....they just need to keep banging the drums

about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

[Burkingam]

Or we could blame it on the animal rights groups that are over in Japan going nuts over the dolphin slaughtering. They're getting all the press, and the winter is so cold, people forget about "global warming". OR....they just need to keep banging the drums

about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

Actually, if people listened to animal right groups it would help a lot to mitigate climate change since meat production is also one of the biggest emitters of GHG.

[halfelite]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/18/5422676/climate-change-is-weapon-of-mass-destruction-says-john-kerry

I just can't help not to laugh at this statements regardless that I totally agree with him. I mean they've attacked Iraq because of WMD. So I wonder if they're planning to attack its own country, since most of the obstacles to solve climate change comes from within (US).

What obstacles. We added higher EPA goals set and all factors moved to china.

[AceHigh]

Or we could blame it on the animal rights groups that are over in Japan going nuts over the dolphin slaughtering. They're getting all the press, and the winter is so cold, people forget about "global warming". OR....they just need to keep banging the drums

about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

Actually, if people listened to animal right groups it would help a lot to mitigate climate change since meat production is also one of the biggest emitters of GHG.

Or we could reduce our population. The damage to environment would mitigate at the same rate as the population decrease.

[Burkingam]

Or we could reduce our population. The damage to environment would mitigate at the same rate as the population decrease.

Or we could just pretend there was nothing wrong and keep going until environmental damage finds a way to reduce our population for us. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what really end up happening.

[AceHigh]

Sounds like the most realistic scenario.

[jaybug]

If we listened to those same animal rights groups, we would not have many animals left. Benign neglect is not benign in the long run.

Oh, and give up on milk, cheese and other dairy products. Oh, we cannot forget about chicken eggs! Well shit! There just went half the grocery store! NO meat, dairy, or eggs. Crap now what do we feed our pets? Oh, right, we don't! We have set them free. They are now independent contractors or something.

Say, doesn't evolution say that something will come along to make use of the GHG's?

Why wait for environmental damge to reduce the population, just keep electing Democrats to power! They have found a sure fire way to decimate the population.

[lololitas]

Weren't there projects to collect the GHGs of livestock (I think it consist of methane in large parts) and then use it for biogas plants? Of course we'd end up with CO2 (CO if the combustion does not have enough O2), but that's better for the environment than methane or other GHGs. Or we just take a lighter to wherever our GHGs gather and light it.

Anyway, we'll end up waiting for the world to fix itself, unless some of the projects that are considered saviors (I don't believe them) actually work. There were some cool designs, I must admit, but they are bogus with our level of technology.

[Burkingam]

Weren't there projects to collect the GHGs of livestock (I think it consist of methane in large parts) and then use it for biogas plants? Of course we'd end up with CO2 (CO if the combustion does not have enough O2), but that's better for the environment than methane or other GHGs. Or we just take a lighter to wherever our GHGs gather and light it.

This sounds extremely unlikely, but even if we collect the biogas from cows, that's not the only problem. The agricultural sector in general is a major emitter of GHGs in general and much of the crop being grown is used to feed livestock. The third most important GHG which has almost the same CO2e emission as methane are NOx which are mainly coming from fertilizers. So basically we clear land(CO2), then we fertilize it (NOx), we transport it(more Co2) and we feed it to livestock(CH4).

[jaybug]

https://www.nwnatural.com/Residential/SmartEnergy This is the program I pay extra for in my natural gas bill each month. I know Tillamook cheese has used this program to install a biogas plant, and do something besides smell all the cow manure.

Burk, the third most important GHG is CO2, not NOx. Water and methane both being higher rated in insulating properties than CO2. Show me where NOx comes mainly from fertilizers? I can see every form of combustion, but not fertilizers. Besides you don't get NOx from fertilizers, you get nitrates. NO3s. And those leach into groundwater, if there is nothing growing, or if over fertilization occurs. The only way you are going to get NOx into the atmosphere is from the mining industry, when they blast the mines. And that is far far less than what occurs naturally on an annual basis from lightning, and other electrical storms.

Basically, if it wasn't for man, the only way most plants get any nitrate for fertilization is through electrical storm activity.

[lololitas]

NOx could still be created through fertilizers, by means of bacteria or incomplete reactions. Heck even we humans produce nitrogen radicals, although we also reduce them further down the line. Also nitrogen also comes from dying animals to a certain extent

@burk, how about a chain: collect CH4 and CO2, burn CH4, use CO2 for carbonated drinks, increase population of fat americans to drink all the coke/pepsi we produce, reduce remaining world population

Also CO2 should be somewhat more solvable through biotechnology than other GHGs. Just imagine a giant algae plant (not as in lifeform, but as a construct instead), heck we could probably single out the chloroplasts themselves, but they alone don't suffice

[Burkingam]

Also CO2 should be somewhat more solvable through biotechnology than other GHGs. Just imagine a giant algae plant (not as in lifeform, but as a construct instead), heck we could probably single out the chloroplasts themselves, but they alone don't suffice

The problem with CO2 is the shear scale at which we produce them. In comparison, the amount we use with an algae plant is relatively minute. And one of the main unresolved challenges about algea biofuel is protection against infections, and the larger the algeaculture farm, the easier it is for pathogens to infect it. Furthermore, growing algae is a form of CO2 recycling, not storage, because any algae you use growing them is gonna get released in the atmosphere when you use the algae.

More over, CO2 capture and storage or recycling is only realistic with current technology in fixed facilities, like a power plant because collecting CO2 directly from the atmosphere is way too expensive.

[jaybug]

lolo, sigh...What do you think nitrate and nitrite means? Just replaces the x with a specific number.

Use blood meal as a source of nitrogen for your garden. It's organic! AND it keeps the deer away!

Ya know Burk, we could have CO2 separators and pumping stations that would stuff it into empty CH4 wells. We could use solar and wind power to operate them. Hey, if we made them small enough, we could have every house and business sending CO2 back to a utility through a pipe this way. All power projects do not need to be mega-sized, not if we ALL contribute.

[lololitas]

I know, to be precise, NOx should cover NO, NO2, NO3, NO*- and NO*. I was mainly referring to the previous post that only included NO3. On that note, I'd say the most dangerous versions should be the radicals NO* and NO*-, but those should only be created in organisms during the reduction of other radicals/superoxides.

[jaybug]

I know, to be precise, NOx should cover NO, NO2, NO3, NO*- and NO*. I was mainly referring to the previous post that only included NO3. On that note, I'd say the most dangerous versions should be the radicals NO* and NO*-, but those should only be created in organisms during the reduction of other radicals/superoxides.

Are NO*- & NO*+ radicals, or ions? Or does that mean more or less the same thing inside a living organism? So, how is fire described as free radicals then? Better drink your green tea, pomegranate and cranberry juices!