That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
In a statement to CBS News, NOAA said that the tweet was not made in response to Mr. Trump, but was "something NOAA routinely puts out when we get an extreme cold snap such as the one we're in now. "
https://twitter.com/CaslerNoel/status/1 ... 3153793027pr0ner wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:09 pm Trump is at it again, this time actively calling for Global Warming (also known as "Global Waming" in Trump speak).
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4010404864
DJT, in case of deletion wrote:In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!
Wow I have to be living in a cave. I never knew Sarah Huckabee's dad was Mike Huckabee. How embarrassing
again must be a cave. I guess I got tired of paying attention after Trump getting rid of the various press secretaries.
lolZ-Corn wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:05 pm I just hope some day I can see eye-to-eye with her on some of these issues...
Soon, beachgoers won’t be able to buy certain top-selling sunscreens along parts of the Florida Keys.
The Key West City Commission voted Tuesday night to ban sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate, two chemicals that have been shown to be damaging to coral reefs. Beginning in January 2021, Key West will ban such sunscreens from sale within city limits — taking a cue from Hawaii, which became the first state to pass a similar ban.
...
For years, oxybenzone and octinoxate have been used to protect people’s skin from UV radiation, but some research has shown that skin care products containing these chemicals can wash away from the skin while swimming or bathing and seep into the water, causing damage to coral reefs.
...
Last summer, Hawaii passed legislation banning skin-care companies from selling and distributing sunscreens on the islands that contain oxybenzone and octinoxate. The bill was opposed by various companies and business associations and even some dermatologists, who worried it might discourage people from wearing sunscreen. Still, Gov. David Ige (D) signed the bill, making Hawaii the first state to enact legislation designed to protect marine ecosystems by banning such sunscreens.
...
The National Park Service has urged people to take a “reef friendly” approach to sunscreen shopping, instead buying skin-care products that contain titanium oxide or zinc oxide, which are considered natural alternatives to the two chemicals that will soon be banned from sale in Key West.
The Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) today excludes nuclear energy from the proposed mix. If it were ever actually attempted nationally, it would increase greenhouse gas emissions — just as a similar effort did in Vermont.
The written statement distributed by the office of Ocasio-Cortez says "the plan is to transition off of nuclear."
Senator Bernie Sanders and climate activist Bill McKibben. Both insist the world can be powered on renewables alone. But consider what’s actually happened in their own state.
In 2005, Vermont legislators promised to reduce emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2012, and 50% below 1990 levels by 2028, through the use of renewables and energy efficiency only.
What’s happened since? Vermont’s emissions rose 16.3%. That’s more than twice as much as national emissions rose during the same period.
I agree that ignoring nuclear power as a way to provide energy without adding to climate change is a bit short sighted.Defiant wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:26 pm I'm very disappointed, though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, that the new "Green New Deal" proposal excludes Nuclear Energy.
The Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) today excludes nuclear energy from the proposed mix. If it were ever actually attempted nationally, it would increase greenhouse gas emissions — just as a similar effort did in Vermont.
The written statement distributed by the office of Ocasio-Cortez says "the plan is to transition off of nuclear."
Senator Bernie Sanders and climate activist Bill McKibben. Both insist the world can be powered on renewables alone. But consider what’s actually happened in their own state.
In 2005, Vermont legislators promised to reduce emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2012, and 50% below 1990 levels by 2028, through the use of renewables and energy efficiency only.
What’s happened since? Vermont’s emissions rose 16.3%. That’s more than twice as much as national emissions rose during the same period.
I agree that something radical must be done to combat climate change, and it needs to be done now, but creating the many trillions of dollars needed to do it out of thin air doesn't seem like the best way to pay for it (to me, anyway).How will you pay for it?
The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn't how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity.
I haven't had a chance to dig into this proposal yet, but just as a drive-by comment: climate change is one of those fun things that we're simply going to pay for. We can do nothing, and have gigantic costs in a few decades. Or we can do something, and have much less gigantic but still huge costs sooner than that (and also large costs in a few decades, since we've already partially screwed the pooch).Chrisoc13 wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:58 pm Quantitative easing to pay for it... Even if I could get behind some of the ideas (and I could get behind some but not most) that's not an ok way to "pay" for it in my opinion.
The idea has floated around for a while, although I don't know who put their input into this resolution, apart from the offices of Ocasio-Cortez and Markey.RunningMn9 wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:56 am Out of curiosity, where did this new green deal come from that AOC is fronting?
"A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants," read a fact sheet posted on the homepage of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). "It's unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible."
Within hours, that language had disappeared from the congresswoman's website, and her staff went silent on questions of how and why it vanished.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060120029What was left after the vanishing fact sheet was the original six-page resolution, which called for meeting 100 percent of the United States' power demand with "clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
It made no mention of the nation's nuclear reactors, which face the threat of closure in regional markets across the Northeast and Midwest where gas plants and wind power offer lower-cost electricity.
Adding to the confusion, Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the plan's Senate sponsor, told reporters at a press conference near the steps of the Capitol that their nonbinding resolution was technology-neutral, suggesting that nuclear could still be on the table.
"The resolution is silent on any individual technology which can move us toward a solution of this problem. This is a resolution that does not have individual prescriptions in it, so it is silent," Markey told reporters. When asked about the fact sheet and its intent to ban nuclear, he responded, "That is not part of the resolution."
Nuclear boosters grumbled about the confusion but said they believe the noncommittal resolution is proof that backers of the "Green New Deal" support nuclear power.
Not like they would get any support from the right on any of these ideas, but that one single word ("unwilling") pretty much guarantees this won't gain even the slightest bit of traction with moderates either.Defiant wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:16 am Apparently, according to the Green New Deal FAQ, the Green New Deal will guarantee "Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work"
Like the guy that was supposed to go through and make sure there weren't any embarrassing mistakes in the documents that got released.
providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so those communities may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous people for all decisions that affect indigenous people and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous people, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous people;
WTF? I thought this was supposed to be a plan focused on the environment and addressing climate change, not the entire Democratic party's wish list.providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
