Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Purple_Shyguy]

Fracking is demonstrably associated with various health risks, significantly increases earthquakes in the area, and contributes to the problems of climate change and global warming, both because of the release of methane and because of the burning of fossil fuels.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

Fracking should be illegal.

So does cow farts.

 

[Lacius]

Just woke up today and Biden still has no deposited the 2,000 dollars he promise

He wanted $2,000 instead of $600. You got $600. $2,000 minus $600 is $1,400, and you will get it if Republicans don't fuck it up.

 

[Darth Meteos]

So does cow farts.

this is perhaps the stupidest take on climate i have seen on the politics section of gbatemp, and think of the ground that covers

 

[Lacius]

So does cow farts.

It's actually cow burps, not cow farts. And you're right. We should scale down meat production.

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

this is perhaps the stupidest take on climate i have seen on the politics section of gbatemp, and think of the ground that covers

Am I wrong tho

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It's actually cow burps, not cow farts. And you're right. We should scale down meat production.

Youre absolutely right. We should eat bugs like good little boys and girls. Eat the bugs.

 

[Lacius]

Am I wrong tho

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Youre absolutely right. We should eat bugs like good little boys and girls. Eat the bugs.

The biggest problems are the burning of fossil fuels, so diverting attention to the methane produced by meat production doesn't do anything to counter the need to stop burning fossil fuels. Cow methane could be the #1 problem, and it wouldn't change the conversation about burning fossil fuels.

Methane from the meat industry is a problem. We should reduce the amount of meat we produce.

Nobody said anything about bugs.

 

[Foxi4]

Fracking is demonstrably associated with various health risks, significantly increases earthquakes in the area, and contributes to the problems of climate change and global warming, both because of the release of methane and because of the burning of fossil fuels.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

Fracking should be illegal.

Those are possible, not confirmed effects. The actual impact of fracking is not well-researched, according to your own link. The problems you've mentioned can be mitigated with proper procedures.

An assessment of the currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction will be low if the operations are properly run and regulated.

The potential environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing include air emissions and climate change, high water consumption, groundwater contamination, land use, risk of earthquakes, noise pollution, and health effects on humans. (...) Escape of methane is a bigger problem in older wells than in ones built under more recent EU legislation.

A better understanding of the geology of the area being fracked and used for injection wells can be helpful in mitigating the potential for significant seismic events.

U.S.Surface water may be contaminated through spillage and improperly built and maintained waste pits,and ground water can be contaminated if the fluid is able to escape the formation being fractured (through, for example, abandoned wells, fractures, and faults) or by produced water (the returning fluids, which also contain dissolved constituents such as minerals and brine waters). The possibility of groundwater contamination from brine and fracturing fluid leakage through old abandoned wells is low.

In other words, there's a good way and a bad way to do it.

alternatively, clean energy

This is not sufficient due to the characteristics of green energy sources.

 

[Darth Meteos]

Am I wrong tho

you are right in that cows emit methane gas
the difference, you absolute moron, is in the quantity and control aspects
i spent about two minutes trying to come up with a metaphor to describe the desolate void that is in your skull, but it's beneath me, and i could be doing something more useful, like sweeping a beach or spitting at a forest fire

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

The biggest problems are the burning of fossil fuels, so diverting attention to the methane produced by meat production doesn't do anything to counter the need to stop burning fossil fuels. Cow methane could be the #1 problem, and it wouldn't change the conversation about burning fossil fuels.

Methane from the meat industry is a problem. We should reduce the amount of meat we produce.

Nobody said anything about bugs.

https://www.politico.eu/article/bugs-for-dinner-eu-agency-says-mealworms-safe-to-eat/
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...nsect-save-planet-global-warming-tasty-trendy
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...save-the-planet-from-climate-change-80gxhrgs6
https://thenewamerican.com/world-ec...eeds-and-bugs-to-save-us-from-climate-change/
https://environmentjournal.online/a...cts-could-be-the-key-to-a-sustainable-planet/
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/to-save-the-world-eat-bugs/283970/
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/eat-insects-save-the-world.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/25/health/insects-feed-save-planet-wellness/index.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/natu...hange-meat-production-eating-insects-research

The EU just made worms "safe to eat".
https://www.politico.eu/article/bugs-for-dinner-eu-agency-says-mealworms-safe-to-eat/

"“There are clear environmental and economic benefits if you substitute traditional sources of animal proteins with those that require less feed, produce less waste and result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions," Mazzocchi said in a statement."

Ban fracking. Eat bugs. Drink soy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

you are right

 

[Lacius]

Those are possible, not confirmed effects. The actual impact of fracking is not well-researched, according to your own link.



In other words, there's a good way and a bad way to do it.
This is not sufficient due to the characteristics of green energy sources.

Fracking as we know it is associated with heath risks, and if you mitigates those risks, it doesn't solve the other problems I mentioned.

It should also be noted that many of the health risks are confirmed, not speculative.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

https://www.politico.eu/article/bugs-for-dinner-eu-agency-says-mealworms-safe-to-eat/
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...nsect-save-planet-global-warming-tasty-trendy
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...save-the-planet-from-climate-change-80gxhrgs6
https://thenewamerican.com/world-ec...eeds-and-bugs-to-save-us-from-climate-change/
https://environmentjournal.online/a...cts-could-be-the-key-to-a-sustainable-planet/
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/to-save-the-world-eat-bugs/283970/
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/eat-insects-save-the-world.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/25/health/insects-feed-save-planet-wellness/index.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/natu...hange-meat-production-eating-insects-research

The EU just made worms "safe to eat".
https://www.politico.eu/article/bugs-for-dinner-eu-agency-says-mealworms-safe-to-eat/

"“There are clear environmental and economic benefits if you substitute traditional sources of animal proteins with those that require less feed, produce less waste and result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions," Mazzocchi said in a statement."

Ban fracking. Eat bugs. Drink soy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I mean neither of us in the conversation brought up bugs, and eating bugs is not required to mitigate climate change, and bugs are not required to reduce the amount of meat we produce.

There's also nothing wrong with eating bugs and/or soy when one wants to do it. You haven't made an argument against mitigating climate change.

 

[Foxi4]

Fracking as we know it is associated with heath risks, and if you mitigates those risks, it doesn't solve the other problems I mentioned.

It should also be noted that many of the health risks are confirmed, not speculative.

Reducing your reliance on shale gas doesn't reduce your reliance on coal and other fossil fuels - the opposite is true, you're still relying on them, even more so in the absence of fracking. Shale gas is an excellent transitional fuel before green energy can be rolled out in a sustainable manner, which will take decades. We've had this argument before in the previous thread though, so rehashing it seems pointless.

 

[Darth Meteos]

You haven't made an argument against mitigating climate change.

i have an argument
if we don't do anything, it will hasten our deaths
sounds like everything i've ever wanted

 

[Foxi4]

i have an argument
if we don't do anything, it will hasten our deaths
sounds like everything i've ever wanted

Something that always gives me a hearty chuckle. Everybody's in a hurry to get off the roller coaster until they see a bent rail on the horizon, that's when they start looking for emergency breaks.

 

[Lacius]

Reducing your reliance on shale gas doesn't reduce your reliance on coal and other fossil fuels - the opposite is true, you're still relying on them, even more so in the absence of fracking. Shale gas is an excellent transitional fuel before green energy can be rolled out in a sustainable manner, which will take decades. We've had this argument before in the previous thread though, so rehashing it seems pointless.

Sure, we don't have to rehash our old arguments. I will just say there there's no reason to substantively use any of the fossil fuels, and contrasting natural gas with other fossil fuels doesn't make natural gas or fracking good things. They're demonstrably bad.

 

[Darth Meteos]

Something that always gives me a hearty chuckle. Everybody's in a hurry to get off the roller coaster until they see a bent rail on the horizon, that's when they start looking for emergency breaks.

dude i'm just a millenial no need to break out the metaphors on me
wanting to die is almost like having a personality for us

Sure, we don't have to rehash our old arguments. I will just say there there's no reason to substantively use any of the fossil fuels, and contrasting natural gas with other fossil fuels doesn't make natural gas or fracking good things. They're demonstrably bad.

what i don't get is why we don't just do a new deal
we have unemployment issues at the moment and we're in a massive economic depression
now is kind of the time to do a new deal and convert america's energy production to sustainable sources through big public works projects

 

[Foxi4]

Sure, we don't have to rehash our old arguments. I will just say there there's no reason to substantively use any of the fossil fuels, and contrasting natural gas with other fossil fuels doesn't make natural gas or fracking good things. They're demonstrably bad.

Meanwhile, my argument is that you can slice your emissions in more than half by using shale gas more extensively and choose not to because a bunch of squirrels and other assorted critters are in the way (Keystone XL). Fossil fuels, by nature, provide more energy security than green energy does purely because they can be easily stored whereas wind or sunlight cannot - they must be converted into electricity and stored in some form of kinetic or electrochemical battery. It's an engineering challenge. I will agree that burning just about anything is bad for the environment, as is any form of mining, since that's objectively true - they're all detrimental to the environment.

 

[Foxi4]

dude i'm just a millenial no need to break out the metaphors on me
wanting to die is almost like having a personality for us

Always err on the side of Mickey Mouse.

Panic is rarely advisible.

 

[Lacius]

Meanwhile, my argument is that you can slice your emissions in more than half by using shale gas more extensively and choose not to because a bunch of squirrels and other assorted critters are in the way (Keystone XL). Fossil fuels, by nature, provide more energy security than green energy does purely because they can be easily stored whereas wind or sunlight cannot - they must be converted into electricity and stored in some form of kinetic or electrochemical battery. It's an engineering challenge. I will agree that burning just about anything is bad for the environment, as is any form of mining, since that's objectively true - they're all detrimental to the environment.

Burning any fossil fuels is unacceptable. The cumulative damage done to the planet is undeniable. We have everything we need to switch to 100% green energy. You are right there are some engineering hurdles, but we already have the technology to more than get over them.

 

[Valwinz]

He wanted $2,000 instead of $600. You got $600. $2,000 minus $600 is $1,400, and you will get it if Republicans don't fuck it up.

fuck what up? is Biden he controls everything lol is on Him not the minority

 

[Lacius]

fuck what up? is Biden he controls everything lol is on Him not the minority

Biden does not "control everything." He is the executive branch, and Republicans can potentially use the filibuster in half of the legislative branch.