Eco-Activists Are Trying To Kill Green Tech That Could Eliminate Emissions From Fossil Fuels

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by XXJefferson#51, Dec 18, 2022.

  1. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Banned

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    16,405
    Likes Received:
    14,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    • Numerous environmental nonprofits oppose the development of carbon capture technology, which allows fossil fuel producers to offset some of the carbon emissions they produce, even though the United Nations says that the technology is needed to meet international climate targets.
    • The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for that governments and other entities must use carbon capture technologies to remove greenhouse emissions from the atmosphere in order to limit global temperature increases to below 2.7°F, compared to pre-industrial levels, according to an April IPCC report.
    • “The last thing they want to see is a mechanism that allows oil and gas to remain effective sources of energy,” Rio Grande Foundation President Paul Gessing told the Daily Caller News Foundation…



    • Read more news: https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/17/...-green-tech-eliminate-emissions-fossil-fuels/





    • This Daily Caller News Foundation article is no surprise. The eco crowd care more about eliminating an entire industry more than they care about reducing greenhouse gases. They hate it that we reduced our footprint so much by using natural gas.
     
    ButterBalls and Steve N like this.
  2. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Banned

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    16,405
    Likes Received:
    14,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anyone notice how in blue states there is an all out effort to eliminate natural gas for heating and for home appliances? To them natural gas is enemy #1 since it burns so clean and fracking made it plentiful and cheap.
     
    yabberefugee likes this.
  3. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,287
    Likes Received:
    20,866
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sooo... whats the problem with oil if its not emissions?
     
    XXJefferson#51 likes this.
  4. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Banned

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    16,405
    Likes Received:
    14,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    These bicoastal secular progressive urban elites care more about killing off the fossil fuels industry and replacing it with what they want regardless of actual emissions and carbon footprint. The great reset…
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  5. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,656
    Likes Received:
    7,158
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Going to go out on a limb and assume the article is true, so I'd have to say that the folks you're dealing with here, the environmentalists, are so rigid in their vision that they can't see the big picture. I always question the competency of those who think huge ingrained systems like fossil fuel use will just change overnight. Environmentalists, as ultimately good as their cause in general is(protecting the environment IS actually important), have to accept that since they have no viable alternative to offer in place of fossil fuels that can handle the same scale of use, compromises and slower approaches are something you're going to have to live with. Humanity will always have an environmental impact, even on our best green behavior, and it's just as important to manage it from a humanitarian standpoint as it is an environmental one. Sometimes you have to lean towards what's better for humanity instead of the environment.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2022
    XXJefferson#51 likes this.
  6. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,127
    Likes Received:
    4,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Excellent post.

    What these militant environmentalists don't understand or purposefully fail to acknowledge is that the world they want to create is literally impossible. What they'll argue is that if we don't implement extreme change now then there will be no world tomorrow but what they won't acknowledge is that if we implement extreme change now there will be no world today. Doing what these people ask will result in mass starvation and global economic collapse. The entire modern world was engineered to run on fossil fuels and there is simply no way to undue that and switch to alternative energy and maintain the modern functioning world in it's current state.

    I'm all for researching cleaner energy and doing what we realistically can to be better stewards of the environment. Key word here is realistically. I live a pretty basic life in a very rural area and my so called carbon footprint is about as small as anybody could realistically expect someone's to be in the modern world. Most westernized folks would call even my way of life extreme in the 21st century and want no part of it yet even the way I live wouldn't be "good enough" for these environmentalist folks. Most folks aren't willing to even make a few quality of life and/or convenience sacrifices to live like I do which isn't even close to rudimentary but would be considered so by the average person living in a 21st century modern society. They damn sure aren't going to be on board with the real extreme changes the militant environmentalists are calling for. Nor should they. Theres no point in collapsing humanity for a better tomorrow if the changes required will result in there being pretty much no humanity tomorrow.
     
    Junkieturtle likes this.
  7. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Banned

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    16,405
    Likes Received:
    14,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is accurate and your response is reasonable
     
  8. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Banned

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    16,405
    Likes Received:
    14,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Great post. There is no economically viable way to implement the desired green agenda. The green one is simply a cover for the international, not domestic red agenda.
     
  9. Quantum Nerd

    Quantum Nerd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    17,814
    Likes Received:
    22,851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you realize that carbon capture actually requires energy? That it costs money?

    Part of the free energy usable as work from the combustion of octane comes from the release of more gas molecules (CO2) as products than there were there as reactants (O2), resulting in an entropy increase. Now, this entropy has to be reduced when CO2 is captured, requiring energy. This even further decreases the already poor efficiency of the internal combustion engine, which is around 30%. In contrast, the electric motor has >90% efficiency. On a society level, we just can't afford to throw away 60%+ of the usable energy as heat, with the antiquated ICE cars.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2022
    Melb_muser and Hey Now like this.
  10. hawgsalot

    hawgsalot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Messages:
    10,183
    Likes Received:
    9,423
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Electric cars require energy too. Glad you see the ignorance.
     
  11. Quantum Nerd

    Quantum Nerd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    17,814
    Likes Received:
    22,851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey, I never said that EVs don't use energy. EVERYTHING that humans do requires energy. Electric cars, however, use a lot less energy than ICE-powered cars. And there I thought conservatives were FOR conservation, i.e. saving, for example energy and money.

    I wold urge you, however, to think about what my last post was about. Namely, that carbon capture reduces the already low efficiency of the ICE, therefore, increasing the rate at which precious fossil fuel reserves will be used up. Or, does partisanship prevent you from thinking about the scientific basis behind things?
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2022
    Melb_muser likes this.
  12. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    50,841
    Likes Received:
    37,181
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Idiots :) Forecasting -20 here We-Th! Lets see Mean Green Energy handle that ;)
    upload_2022-12-19_7-24-16.png
    Global warming, I WISH!! Lakes here already 14inch ice capped!!
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2022
  13. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    50,841
    Likes Received:
    37,181
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The colder the temp the shorter the charge last! Even the most basic vehicle necessities like defrosters, compartment heating, wipers, flood lamps make EV's pretty much useless in colder climates, and actually dangerous! How long you reckon you can survive at -0 temps sitting on the side of the road ;)
     
  14. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    75,741
    Likes Received:
    50,755
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Carbon is life. I'm completely against Carbon Capture.
     

Share This Page