Deaths from climate change

[AnalogPackrat]

Useless and impractical?

You own shares in the petroleum industry?

Electricity wholesale prices in Europe were negative the past weeks, due to lots of wind and sun. If you depend on US press, you probably haven't heard about it.

How was it this winter?

Far from useless, if you ask me.

OTOH the wood pellets made from US forests that were cleared for fracking, are not renewable. But the scam continues...
So, old electricity plants in the UK were converted from coal to pellets, with a small mountain of money from the EU. They of course spread dioxin as wood contains it naturally.

I live a few miles from a wood pellet plant. The trees that are cut to feed the plant are not "cleared for fracking." They are taken from grown forests, mostly loblolly pine which is widely grown here in the southeastern US for lumber, pulp (paper), and now pellets. The cleared land is usually replanted, thinned (for pulp or pellets) once or twice over 20-25 years before being cut again at 30-50 years. Some cleared land is developed (converted to housing, commercial, industrial, or other use). I'm not a huge fan of fracking, but I don't recall reading that it requires a large above ground footprint (unlike strip mining for coal, for example).

Maybe Europe could have built more reliable nuclear plants or cleaner NG plants over the past 30-50 years rather than coming to depend on American biomass to power their homes, businesses, and industries. The root problem isn't the supplier, but the unmet demand for energy in Europe due to European decisions.

 

[user 37518]

Useless and impractical?

You own shares in the petroleum industry?

Electricity wholesale prices in Europe were negative the past weeks, due to lots of wind and sun. If you depend on US press, you probably haven't heard about it.

Far from useless, if you ask me.

OTOH the wood pellets made from US forests that were cleared for fracking, are not renewable. But the scam continues...
So, old electricity plants in the UK were converted from coal to pellets, with a small mountain of money from the EU. They of course spread dioxin as wood contains it naturally.

Useless and impractical indeed, the amount of batteries required to store the energy coming from solar power is ridiculously high, solar can only supply a very limited amount of energy, it only represents a tiny fraction of the total energy expenditure, the size of a solar plant is ridiculous vs the amount of power it produces, and, even if there were a lot of them, there is not enough lithium in the planet to create the amount of batteries required. Wind requires huge amounts of land, turbines must be very separated from each other, otherwise, turbulence occurs. Both solar and wind are intermittent as well.

Compare that to nuclear, it really is a stupid idea to pretend that solar and wind are the answer for humanity's future energy needs. But, again, it's all about how we 'feel' about ourselves, wind and solar make us feel good about ourselves. Last time I checked, Germany invested tons on 'renewable' energies but started crying when Russia's oil pipe exploded. Solar and wind are good excuses for people to feel like they are doing their part on saving the world, as long as there is coal and nuclear to back them up, since solar and wind are not self sustainable.

It is easy to state that renewables have kept prices negative for a couple of months whilst still having good old coal there in case everything fails. Also, was England's energy price negative just a few months ago? I don't think so.... But then again, some people don't think England is part of Europe.

Hey, but you keep spending on solar and wind, Europe, when China and India are burning coal, and represent the largest amount of pollution contributors in the world. You'll get a badge for the 8% you are helping the world

 

[JohnRoberts]

How was it this winter?


I live a few miles from a wood pellet plant. The trees that are cut to feed the plant are not "cleared for fracking." They are taken from grown forests, mostly loblolly pine which is widely grown here in the southeastern US for lumber, pulp (paper), and now pellets. The cleared land is usually replanted, thinned (for pulp or pellets) once or twice over 20-25 years before being cut again at 30-50 years. Some cleared land is developed (converted to housing, commercial, industrial, or other use). I'm not a huge fan of fracking, but I don't recall reading that it requires a large above ground footprint (unlike strip mining for coal, for example).

Maybe Europe could have built more reliable nuclear plants or cleaner NG plants over the past 30-50 years rather than coming to depend on American biomass to power their homes, businesses, and industries. The root problem isn't the supplier, but the unmet demand for energy in Europe due to European decisions.

Soft wood is a popular side hustle here in the south. My neighbor owns a bunch of acres (in AL IIRC) planted in pine, but prices have been weak lately so he is not in any hurry to harvest them. When storms come through and knock down trees, they have to be harvested because they will rot and be worthless if you leave them sit on the ground too long.

JR

 

[user 41968]

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/ge...clear-power-plants-electricity-bills-spike-45

 

[Tubetec]

Not only has Germany shut down its last nuclear power plant , but the French nuclear energy sector is in big trouble ,
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/...crack-in-nuclear-reactor-pipe_6018588_98.html

 

[cyrano]

Useless and impractical indeed, the amount of batteries required to store the energy coming from solar power is ridiculously high, solar can only supply a very limited amount of energy, it only represents a tiny fraction of the total energy expenditure, the size of a solar plant is ridiculous vs the amount of power it produces, and, even if there were a lot of them, there is not enough lithium in the planet to create the amount of batteries required. Wind requires huge amounts of land, turbines must be very separated from each other, otherwise, turbulence occurs. Both solar and wind are intermittent as well.

In 2020, Germany had several months with ALL energy coming from solar, wind and hydro.
ATM, the electricity price in Europe is negative. Yes, there's too much energy produced by solar and wind.

The idea to store electricity in Li-ion batteries has been abandoned. ATM, sand batteries and supercaps are being tested.

Wind turbines can be a lot smaller. Again, being tested right now. In France, some cities have plastic trees where each leaf is a tiny turbine. In Holland, Belgium and Germany, vertical turbines are being tested as we speak. Again, no real problems.

Compare that to nuclear, it really is a stupid idea to pretend that solar and wind are the answer for humanity's future energy needs. But, again, it's all about how we 'feel' about ourselves, wind and solar make us feel good about ourselves. Last time I checked, Germany invested tons on 'renewable' energies but started crying when Russia's oil pipe exploded. Solar and wind are good excuses for people to feel like they are doing their part on saving the world, as long as there is coal and nuclear to back them up, since solar and wind are not self sustainable.

The one thing (besides the price) that makes nuclear impractical, is radio-active waste. Not necessarily from the fuel. What do you do with a nuclear plant when it's past it's safe life?

It is easy to state that renewables have kept prices negative for a couple of months whilst still having good old coal there in case everything fails. Also, was England's energy price negative just a few months ago? I don't think so.... But then again, some people don't think England is part of Europe.

I don't know about the UK. It's no longer part of the EU.

Germany has only 4 coal plants, producing 16 GW producing electricity. Fasing out by 2030. Belgium has none. Holland has five, France has none, but restarted one last winter, as safety.

Hey, but you keep spending on solar and wind, Europe, when China and India are burning coal, and represent the largest amount of pollution contributors in the world. You'll get a badge for the 8% you are helping the world

So that's an intelligent answer? We can pollute all we want, cause some others are worse? Sounds like an argument for kindergarten...

China is adding more than 100 GW of solar this year. They already have more solar and wind energy than the US. And that's not because they are so green. They know the problems firsthand. Just like London had bad smog problems in the past, Chinese cities have it now.

Even for the Chinese, money counts. I believe they have weighted the healthcare cost of smog and other pollution and the result was that it is way cheaper to install alternative energy sources. I mean, over 90% of research into solar is carried out in China. Sure, they might want to sell some to other countries, but they could also keep the best for themselves.

I can't understand how Muricans still consider the USA as the biggest country in the world. China is way bigger (1.4 Billion) and so is India (1.4 Billion).

Was it Jefferson that said "If the USA is to end, it will be by our own hand"? All the symptoms are there, inclusive the fact that the majority chooses to ignore it. Just like the Roman empire. Too big, too fat, too decadent.

 

[scott2000]

I can't understand how Muricans still consider the USA as the biggest country in the world

Maybe could quit talking about it so much and see if that changes

 

[JohnRoberts]

In 2020, Germany had several months with ALL energy coming from solar, wind and hydro.

The problem is all the other months

ATM, the electricity price in Europe is negative. Yes, there's too much energy produced by solar and wind.

That does not sound well managed, either too much or too little.

The idea to store electricity in Li-ion batteries has been abandoned. ATM, sand batteries and supercaps are being tested.

maybe store some excess energy in all those EV batteries after IC vehicles are outlawed.

Wind turbines can be a lot smaller. Again, being tested right now.

that sounds like a more expensive energy approach

In France, some cities have plastic trees where each leaf is a tiny turbine. In Holland, Belgium and Germany, vertical turbines are being tested as we speak. Again, no real problems.

except for when the wind doesn't blow... I think there is an opportunity for solar shingles on residential roofs, but still expensive.

The one thing (besides the price) that makes nuclear impractical, is radio-active waste. Not necessarily from the fuel. What do you do with a nuclear plant when it's past it's safe life?

Modern nuclear is a "relatively" clean bridge technology to power us for the next century. By a century from now we will have much more effective solutions. France is experiencing maintenance issues with their aging nuclear infrastructure. They were early adopters decades ago.

I don't know about the UK. It's no longer part of the EU.

It is still considered part of the western world.

Germany has only 4 coal plants, producing 16 GW producing electricity. Fasing out by 2030. Belgium has none. Holland has five, France has none, but restarted one last winter, as safety.

fossil fuel remains as the go to solution for energy on demand when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.

So that's an intelligent answer? We can pollute all we want, cause some others are worse? Sounds like an argument for kindergarten...

indeed.. I don't recall saying that, but the entire zero carbon argument ignoring all the sundry inputs is not very well informed.

China is adding more than 100 GW of solar this year. They already have more solar and wind energy than the US. And that's not because they are so green. They know the problems firsthand. Just like London had bad smog problems in the past, Chinese cities have it now.

China's wind and solar only provides some 2-3% of their total energy demand. They are reportedly building something like 2 new coal power plants a week.

Even for the Chinese, money counts. I believe they have weighted the healthcare cost of smog and other pollution and the result was that it is way cheaper to install alternative energy sources. I mean, over 90% of research into solar is carried out in China. Sure, they might want to sell some to other countries, but they could also keep the best for themselves.

they understand the value of inexpensive energy for economic growth and quality of life, so pursue an all of the above policy, which includes coal for now.

I can't understand how Muricans still consider the USA as the biggest country in the world. China is way bigger (1.4 Billion) and so is India (1.4 Billion).

straw man.... India is poised to be most populous nation projected to exceed China this year

Was it Jefferson that said "If the USA is to end, it will be by our own hand"? All the symptoms are there, inclusive the fact that the majority chooses to ignore it. Just like the Roman empire. Too big, too fat, too decadent.

It feels a little like the end of the Roman Empire... With the politicians and generals fiddling around about pronouns, and hypothetical existential threats, ignoring the real threats (some coming from within).

JR

 

[cyrano]

The problem is all the other months

Not if you combine with other technologies. Who would ever have imagined glaciers vanishing?
But of course it's easier to ignore that. Ironic. One of the nuclear plants in France is out because the river it's on can't provide enough water.

That does not sound well managed, either too much or too little.

It's an exchange price. If there's a surplus anywhere in Europe, you can sell it. Only, in true capitalistic style, price is driven by offer and demand. And if there's far more offer, prices go negative. Of course, in practice nobody is buying.

maybe store some excess energy in all those EV batteries after IC vehicles are outlawed.

Doesn't sound ideal. You 'd need to service the battery first and there are far too many models. But I agree it could be done. It could even be financially viable.

that sounds like a more expensive energy approach

It isn't. Also, it's not destined to use those fake trees in large groups. The idea is placing them in cities. Where trees have to go for one reason or another.

Mini turbines are very cheap. Since they're not big, safety is a lot less of a worry. And it can't even hurt birds...

except for when the wind doesn't blow... I think there is an opportunity for solar shingles on residential roofs, but still expensive.

Over here, a lot of houses' roofs have been covered like that for years now. But the big energy boys still have to open up to the idea that production is decentralised.

Modern nuclear is a "relatively" clean bridge technology to power us for the next century. By a century from now we will have much more effective solutions. France is experiencing maintenance issues with their aging nuclear infrastructure. They were early adopters decades ago.

Yes, in one case because the river runs dry. I imagine that's not the only case...

It is still considered part of the western world.

I don't know John. I don't see much happening to iron out the obvious disadvantages of Brexit.

fossil fuel remains as the go to solution for energy on demand when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.

indeed.. I don't recall saying that, but the entire zero carbon argument ignoring all the sundry inputs is not very well informed.

China's wind and solar only provides some 2-3% of their total energy demand. They are reportedly building something like 2 new coal power plants a week.

Last year, they started building 33 MW of coal plants, versus 120 MW of solar. Doesn't even include hydro. There's also a govt setup that sells generators, small water- and windturbines to people in rural areas.

they understand the value of inexpensive energy for economic growth and quality of life, so pursue an all of the above policy, which includes coal for now.

Anybody who's not a complete idiot, should understand that zero-growth is what we need. You can't keep growing you economy, unless some other part of the world is the victim. See what's happening to wood. Prices are going steeply up. The Chinese are buying up a lot of wood worldwide. They make stuff from wood and sell it back to us.

They can do that, because wages are low. And that's the crux.

straw man.... India is poised to be most populous nation projected to exceed China this year

In my mind, the people make the country. Not vice versa.

It feels a little like the end of the Roman Empire... With the politicians and generals fiddling around about pronouns, and hypothetical existential threats, ignoring the real threats (some coming from within).

JR

Indeed.

You are forgetting two very important factors:

- Food. Nowhere on earth are there more obese people than in the USA. I don't think so many Americans over-eat and under-exercise. I suspect it has to do with HFCS and stabilised fat.

- Decadence. Guys like Epstein are an example. But it is everywhere, disgusting decent people. If that stays too long, you go into witch hunts like the 70's satanic church hype. Some innocent people have spent a large part of their life in prison because of that. A few died, either as a result of suicide or lynching by a mob. And they're only now getting released.

These were two important factors in the end of the Roman empire too. Some observers will have noticed that in the case of the USA too.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Not if you combine with other technologies. Who would ever have imagined glaciers vanishing?

Ice ages are pretty well inspected

But of course it's easier to ignore that. Ironic. One of the nuclear plants in France is out because the river it's on can't provide enough water.

inadequate cooling sounds like a design flaw or miscalculation

It's an exchange price. If there's a surplus anywhere in Europe, you can sell it. Only, in true capitalistic style, price is driven by offer and demand. And if there's far more offer, prices go negative. Of course, in practice nobody is buying.

In an attempt to get more continuous energy supply, some types get over built, leading to the boom/bust cycle.

Doesn't sound ideal. You 'd need to service the battery first and there are far too many models. But I agree it could be done. It could even be financially viable.

I was not offering a serious solution, but in practice if EV battery packs stay connected to grids while parked and EV chargers were capable of returning energy to the grid when needed they could provide some extra capacity. Unlikely to be a complete solution.

It isn't. Also, it's not destined to use those fake trees in large groups. The idea is placing them in cities. Where trees have to go for one reason or another.

Real trees are OK

Mini turbines are very cheap. Since they're not big, safety is a lot less of a worry. And it can't even hurt birds...

likewise compact nuclear power generation can be widely used.

Over here, a lot of houses' roofs have been covered like that for years now. But the big energy boys still have to open up to the idea that production is decentralised.

huh? it's big business' fault

Yes, in one case because the river runs dry. I imagine that's not the only case...

indeed... after several decades in service maintenance is required for any energy source. How long do we expect wind turbine to go without maintenance?

I don't know John. I don't see much happening to iron out the obvious disadvantages of Brexit.

this thread is about "climate change" hyperbole.

Last year, they started building 33 MW of coal plants, versus 120 MW of solar. Doesn't even include hydro. There's also a govt setup that sells generators, small water- and windturbines to people in rural areas.

• China commissioned 38.4 GW of new coal plants in 2020, over three times the 11.9 GW commissioned in the rest of the world.
• ● Chinaʼs coal fleet grew by net 29.8 GW in 2020, while in the rest of the world net capacity decreased by 17.2 GW.
• ● China initiated 73.5 GW of new coal plant proposals in 2020, over five times the 13.9 GW initiated in the rest of the world combined.
• ● Chinese provinces granted construction approval to 36.9 GW of coal power projects in 2020, over three times the capacity permitted in 2019 (11.4 GW).

China now has 247 GW of coal power under development (88.1 GW under construction and 158.7 GW proposed for construction) – a 21% increase over end-2019 (205 GW), and nearly six times Germanyʼs entire coal-fired capacity (42.5 GW).

Chine is proposing to be carbon neutral in 2060, they forecast increasing carbon emissions to peak in 2030

Anybody who's not a complete idiot, should understand that zero-growth is what we need.

I may be an idiot, because zero growth seems like a recipe for multiple problems

You can't keep growing you economy, unless some other part of the world is the victim.

Huh? Economic growth and free trade has raised millions (billions?) up out of poverty. Denying them inexpensive energy will keep them impoverished.

See what's happening to wood. Prices are going steeply up. The Chinese are buying up a lot of wood worldwide. They make stuff from wood and sell it back to us.

duh..

They can do that, because wages are low. And that's the crux.

the crux of what?

In my mind, the people make the country. Not vice versa.

its a little more complicated than than.

Indeed.

You are forgetting two very important factors:

- Food. Nowhere on earth are there more obese people than in the USA. I don't think so many Americans over-eat and under-exercise. I suspect it has to do with HFCS and stabilised fat.

As world wealth rises so does obesity everywhere, it's the human condition to eat when food is plentiful to carry us through lean times. The modern world doesn't have as many lean times, and food is almost always plentiful.

I am thinking about investing in Lilly and Novo Nordisk because they have promising weight loss drugs (actually diabetes drugs), but the benefit seems to already be priced into the stock so I missed the "buy cheap" window.

- Decadence. Guys like Epstein are an example. But it is everywhere, disgusting decent people. If that stays too long, you go into witch hunts like the 70's satanic church hype. Some innocent people have spent a large part of their life in prison because of that. A few died, either as a result of suicide or lynching by a mob. And they're only now getting released.

There are examples of evil people from other countries... I won't take that bait.

These were two important factors in the end of the Roman empire too. Some observers will have noticed that in the case of the USA too.

There are cycles to civilizational growth and decline. Growth is not the problem for modern civilizations (if anything not enough growth). It seems like crazy minorities have too much impact on public policy.

JR

 

[user 37518]

Was it Jefferson that said "If the USA is to end, it will be by our own hand"? All the symptoms are there, inclusive the fact that the majority chooses to ignore it. Just like the Roman empire. Too big, too fat, too decadent.

I don't know why you are so harsh about the USA when Europe is also doing the same thing, maybe not in the same way, but the great civilization they once were is being destroyed by their own, reverting back to paganism by worshiping the Earth, and themselves, and promoting ridiculous stuff like communism or zero economic growth, when it is precisely capitalism and economic growth that allows Europe citizens to climb on their high tower and start virtue signaling. The disease attacking Europe might be different from that of the US, but it is as sick or worse.

If you are all for communism and zero economic growth, I invite you to leave Europe and move to Latin America, where communism is alive and well, and you can do something for those who are being victims of the ones being benefited (as you say). I suggest Nicaragua or Venezuela, but Cuba is always a good choice. Come to think of it, why are you still in Europe, when there are a lot of communist countries with zero economic growth?

 

[cyrano]

Ice ages are pretty well inspected

No, John, compared to the last ice age, the change we are seeing today is way too fast.

inadequate cooling sounds like a design flaw or miscalculation

When it was built, there was no understanding of global warming. So they couldn't take into account rivers drying up. There are several ponds around the nuclear plant, but they only provide short-term backup. If you can't fill the ponds after use, there's no cooling backup. And in that case, the only thing you can do, is shutting it down. Since it's already an old plant, it needs to be torn down, which is very expensive.

I'm not against nuclear in se, but the people who always seem to promote nuclear, are the same who ignore the obvious problems.

likewise compact nuclear power generation can be widely used.

Resulting in a wider problem?

huh? it's big business' fault

I didn't say that. But it could have gone way faster and better if the energy suppliers had cooperated in stead of lobbying against it. The only reason why they cooperated was because the suppliers wanted smart meters everywhere.

indeed... after several decades in service maintenance is required for any energy source. How long do we expect wind turbine to go without maintenance?

The small ones need no service. They just get replaced and recycled when they break. Expected lifetime is over ten years.

Chine is proposing to be carbon neutral in 2060, they forecast increasing carbon emissions to peak in 2030

"Too little, too late" is what's happening all over the planet. The methane spills in the USA weren't counted for many years, cause the owners of the leaking wells didn't care and went out of their way to hide the problem. It's cheaper to pollute than to repair leaks.

Oil companies were aware of global warming in the seventies, but they chose to hide it.

I may be an idiot, because zero growth seems like a recipe for multiple problems

Such as?

What will we do when there's no more copper in the mines? Start exploring landfills for bits to recycle?

Huh? Economic growth and free trade has raised millions (billions?) up out of poverty. Denying them inexpensive energy will keep them impoverished.

No it hasn't. Capitalism just moves the problem around. If people in one part of the world are doing better through economic growth, there are other places that take the suffering.

the crux of what?

Capitalism.

its a little more complicated than than.

As world wealth rises so does obesity everywhere, it's the human condition to eat when food is plentiful to carry us through lean times. The modern world doesn't have as many lean times, and food is almost always plentiful.

Then why is the USA the only country in the world where the stats for mothers dying while giving birth? Is it perhaps because health care isn't very good? Or because the poor don't have the means to pay for it?
And why is the USA the only western nation where the expected lifetime is going down?

I am thinking about investing in Lilly and Novo Nordisk because they have promising weight loss drugs (actually diabetes drugs), but the benefit seems to already be priced into the stock so I missed the "buy cheap" window.

This is a clear example of the problem. Don't check what you're eating. Take the blue pill, please.

There are examples of evil people from other countries... I won't take that bait.

There's decadence in other places, for sure. Putin's palace is a clear example.

There are cycles to civilizational growth and decline. Growth is not the problem for modern civilizations (if anything not enough growth). It seems like crazy minorities have too much impact on public policy.

That was true 'till about 15.000 years ago. In the years after, agriculture came into existence. No more lean times. Not that there haven't been famines, cause harvest depends on weather.

Zero growth is the only way out, cause our resources are drying up. China has already reached zero-growth when it comes to population. The west also has reached that point, but the numbers are distorted because of immigration.

 

[cyrano]

I don't know why you are so harsh about the USA when Europe is also doing the same thing, maybe not in the same way, but the great civilization they once were is being destroyed by their own, reverting back to paganism by worshiping the Earth, and themselves, and promoting ridiculous stuff like communism or zero economic growth, when it is precisely capitalism and economic growth that allows Europe citizens to climb on their high tower and start virtue signaling. The disease attacking Europe might be different from that of the US, but it is as sick or worse.

Maybe we (Europeans) have learned a bit of our atrocious colonial past?

If you are all for communism and zero economic growth, I invite you to leave Europe and move to Latin America, where communism is alive and well, and you can do something for those who are being victims of the ones being benefited (as you say). I suggest Nicaragua or Venezuela, but Cuba is always a good choice. Come to think of it, why are you still in Europe, when there are a lot of communist countries with zero economic growth?

Who said I'm for communism? And what kind of communism? The hardline USSR one? Or the softer "solidarity for all" one?

It's not as if the two choices are capitalism or communism.

It's funny you say that about moving. I was planning exactly that some years ago. But it's another plan that goes into the freezer, because my family needs me atm. And I need them. Men get softer by aging...

 

[JohnRoberts]

Some of these tired old arguments were raised and discounted decades ago.... Keep digging.

JR

 

[user 37518]

Maybe we (Europeans) have learned a bit of our atrocious colonial past?



Who said I'm for communism? And what kind of communism? The hardline USSR one? Or the softer "solidarity for all" one?

It's not as if the two choices are capitalism or communism.

It's funny you say that about moving. I was planning exactly that some years ago. But it's another plan that goes into the freezer, because my family needs me atm. And I need them. Men get softer by aging...

I don't think you have learned from your past no, you seem intended to follow the rhetoric of the elites and wanting to hand over the world's decisions to the WEF or Greta Thunberg

IIRC, you said you were for anarchy, not communism, however, zero economic growth goes hand in hand with communism, but I guess you just don't like that particular kind of communism and zero economic growth

 

[cyrano]

Not even. The Russian communists were idealists. They had good intentions. Later, internal power struggles and meddling from other nations ruined the party. It got way too big and scary.

I'm for anarchism. Maximum freedom without limiting other's freedom. Base democracy. You anti-commies can't even get the word right. Damn!

A while ago, I came across a paper that concluded being anti anything shortens your lifespan. May being rabid anti-communists is the explanation why Americans have a shortening life span?

Do you realise that the "Anti-american activities law" and the attached propaganda machine is still poisoning your mind after almost a century? It's also the reason there's hardly a left wing in the USA.

Meanwhile, gangs like the KKK can go on, relatively unhindered. And they still murder people. Can anyone explain the logic?

Is it they can't find them? Or is it because they usually kill black people? I mean, in the USA it's lethal to ring the wrong doorbell, by mistake. And if a black prosecutor is afraid to prosecute white police officers who killed an innocent black man, Union Parish hires a white one, with a track record for not finding police officers guilty. What kind of true democracy allows that?

Zero economic growth has nothing to do with communism. It's common sense. We have an aging population and pretty soon we won't be able to take care of them. More money doesn't solve this problem. We need to tackle the population problem and we need to keep an eye on our natural resources. Unfortunately, the big corporations understand the value of scarcity. And they are preparing. Nestlé is buying drinking water wells worldwide. They reckon the earth is drying up and water will be an expensive commodity in the future. As corporations last a long time, they can wait. The same is happening with other natural resources. And they already "own" various governments, via the banks.

Anarchism would answer the water problem by declaring them public property.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

My eyes just rolled so far back in my head that I could see my own optic nerve. Reality seems to have escaped you completely.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I read a citation in the WSJ today saying that "scientists predict" (one scientist's hypothesis apparently) predicts increasing clear air turbulence affecting future air travel.

I don't know if we have much historical data on clear air turbulence (it's clear air so hard for even the pilots to see).

This was repeated uncritically in a newspaper article as established fact.

JR

 

[cyrano]

Well, there have been a number of turbulence related aviation incidents lately...

This is one of them:

 

[user 37518]

My eyes just rolled so far back in my head that I could see my own optic nerve. Reality seems to have escaped you completely.

Indeed, no point pursuing this any further.

 

[user 37518]

I'm for anarchism. Maximum freedom without limiting other's freedom. Base democracy. You anti-commies can't even get the word right. Damn!

Seriously, I hope you are 22 years old.

A while ago, I came across a paper that concluded being anti anything shortens your lifespan. May being rabid anti-communists is the explanation why Americans have a shortening life span?

That's the only possible conclusion. After all, a paper said so, with such infalible scientific proof it must be truth, just as climate change.

It's also the reason there's hardly a left wing in the USA.

That just shows how far left you have moved the goalpost.

Zero economic growth has nothing to do with communism. It's common sense. We have an aging population and pretty soon we won't be able to take care of them. More money doesn't solve this problem. We need to tackle the population problem and we need to keep an eye on our natural resources.

What are you talking about? Do you listen to yourself when you write this stuff?