Europe's Energy crisis.

[bdlesh]

Brother that's thinking outside of the box right there.

 

[xsn10s]

I'm just spit ballin" here, but but don't plants help cool the earth? Deer, elk, antelope and cows all eat plants. The more meat we eat the better for the planet. I personally blame the vegans for climate change, due to them eating plants only.

Ban eating beans. Beans cause flatulence which is methane right? Methane is a green house gas. Follow me for more life hacks.

 

[Ol' Red]

Ban eating beans. Beans cause flatulence which is methane right? Methane is a green house gas. Follow me for more life hacks.

That's how I heat my house in the winter.

 

[birddog 68]

That's how I heat my house in the winter.

I sure hope you don't smoke!

 

[xsn10s]

That's how I heat my house in the winter.

That's a scene from "Blazing Saddles"!

 

[HARPERC]

Our current President say climate change is "A clear and present danger" to the nation. More enviromentalism when most Americans say inflation is a leading concern. But hey what do I know. Might as well quit eating meat because it's murder.

The environmental movement was initiated, and paid for by the Russians, Chinese, and Saudi's decades ago.

They are the worst, and will not comply with any global changes.

Foreign interference has stopped new refineries, and perpetuates the lie of energy dependence on others.

 

[Ol' Red]

I sure hope you don't smoke!

If you don't light them, they don't make heat.

 

[Muddyboots]

I worked in the environmental field for 40+ years and I can tell you the Green Party only uses part of the total green narrative that fits their agenda. In a standard environmental management system, you are required to identify all of your environmental aspects and impacts, and determine which are significant. Some environmental aspects may be regulated, while others may not be. For example, if you identify the generation of a particular air emission as a significant environmental aspect, it would help to know which operation(s) generate such air emissions. It might also help to know whether these air emissions have an impact upon the environment. A true analysis does a full assessment of all goods and services and how those are actually impacting the environment. For example, the production of batteries for EV and what is their impact from mining right up to manufacturing of the battery. There is no way in hello this is part of any Green Party narrative. Just remember they believe "End justifies the means"! Hammer Sickle party uses same approach. I would love to see full cradle to cradle assessment of EV production right back to taking raw materials from the ground. If the total impact is greater than the value, then the process has to be reassessed to find process improvements such the actual final assessment proves less of an impact. Just remember every manufacturing plant that makes parts for an EV that contributes to a carbon footprint is part of the total.

Old standard premise for change: speak with data.

Good luck seeing this coming to fruition.

 

[26Reload]

With all the NEW wells that are being drilled these days the water table is dropping big time.....
All the farmers pulling in three cuts of alfalfa...and others that have added thousads of acres of more crop lands...eating up the waters that used to be used by surface plants....yeah..things are drying up..fast......
In these days of high yields and wasted product....might be a good time to cut back.....not ship foods from states with great growth to states that are destroying our country.......

 

[FrogFire7]

I worked in the environmental field for 40+ years and I can tell you the Green Party only uses part of the total green narrative that fits their agenda. In a standard environmental management system, you are required to identify all of your environmental aspects and impacts, and determine which are significant. Some environmental aspects may be regulated, while others may not be. For example, if you identify the generation of a particular air emission as a significant environmental aspect, it would help to know which operation(s) generate such air emissions. It might also help to know whether these air emissions have an impact upon the environment. A true analysis does a full assessment of all goods and services and how those are actually impacting the environment. For example, the production of batteries for EV and what is their impact from mining right up to manufacturing of the battery. There is no way in hello this is part of any Green Party narrative. Just remember they believe "End justifies the means"! Hammer Sickle party uses same approach. I would love to see full cradle to cradle assessment of EV production right back to taking raw materials from the ground. If the total impact is greater than the value, then the process has to be reassessed to find process improvements such the actual final assessment proves less of an impact. Just remember every manufacturing plant that makes parts for an EV that contributes to a carbon footprint is part of the total.

Old standard premise for change: speak with data.

Good luck seeing this coming to fruition.

I've been saying the exact same thing for years, less eloquently. I can't see any possible way that they have a net loss of carbon with EV in the overall look at things. Could be wrong, but I've never seen a comprehensive report on it.

 

[xsn10s]

Oh I'm sure the carbon production is less with EV's. Add to the fact that many other nations are building a bunch more coal electrical plants EV's make perfect sense.

 

[xsn10s]

The environmental movement was initiated, and paid for by the Russians, Chinese, and Saudi's decades ago.

They are the worst, and will not comply with any global changes.

Foreign interference has stopped new refineries, and perpetuates the lie of energy dependence on others.

Kyle Bass has made reports much like that on CNBC. That hasn't swayed much of a certain party's progressive base.

 

[Wedgy]

Oil from the middle East you say ??
"The average tanker burns 2,623 gallons of diesel fuel per hour"

It takes between 21 to 35 days for a Russian oil tanker to get to U.S. ports and be offloaded. It also takes 35 to 60 days for a tanker from the Middle East to make the same trek. It takes about 120 hours to load the tanker and up to 24 hours to unload and quite often it takes up to three days before unloading the tanker can even begin.

The average tanker burns 2,623 gallons of diesel fuel per hour. It is said that 22.38 pounds of carbon dioxide are created from burning one gallon of diesel fuel. So, in only one hour, a tanker ship hauling oil to a refinery in the U.S. creates 58,757.5 pounds of CO2 into our atmosphere.

Then considering the average travel time of the tankers before it even arrives, it would result in over 27 million tons of CO2 per trip escaping into our atmosphere. In comparison, your family car burns between six and nine tons of CO2 per year. Without considering all the equations necessary to account for all the tankers coming to the U.S. each year, let alone our own exports, will someone please explain to me how drilling our own oil and moving it through pipelines, along with importing oil from Canada via pipeline, will not be more environmentally "green" for the world?

 

[xsn10s]

Oil from the middle East you say ??
"The average tanker burns 2,623 gallons of diesel fuel per hour"

It takes between 21 to 35 days for a Russian oil tanker to get to U.S. ports and be offloaded. It also takes 35 to 60 days for a tanker from the Middle East to make the same trek. It takes about 120 hours to load the tanker and up to 24 hours to unload and quite often it takes up to three days before unloading the tanker can even begin.

The average tanker burns 2,623 gallons of diesel fuel per hour. It is said that 22.38 pounds of carbon dioxide are created from burning one gallon of diesel fuel. So, in only one hour, a tanker ship hauling oil to a refinery in the U.S. creates 58,757.5 pounds of CO2 into our atmosphere.

Then considering the average travel time of the tankers before it even arrives, it would result in over 27 million tons of CO2 per trip escaping into our atmosphere. In comparison, your family car burns between six and nine tons of CO2 per year. Without considering all the equations necessary to account for all the tankers coming to the U.S. each year, let alone our own exports, will someone please explain to me how drilling our own oil and moving it through pipelines, along with importing oil from Canada via pipeline, will not be more environmentally "green" for the world?

Oh pleeze something that sounds so reasonable can't be real. Can't fool me