Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

4,006 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

 

You claim to be a man of science and you come out with trash like this. Disgraceful! Found this pretty fast.

Methane accounts for 16% of greenhouse gas emissions. Of those, 1.5% is from rice alone! I can't find the percentage for cows, but although higher than for rice, it is not so much higher that you can dismiss rice altogether.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/29/methane-emissions-cattle-11-percent-higher-than-estimated

https://www.wri.org/blog/2014/12/more-rice-less-methane

 

 

 

9 hours ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

 

What MikeMelga said above is like complaining about not being able to dump lead acid batteries in landfills. Lithium is also a metal. What about Lithium batteries? Why persecute dumpers of cadmium and lead batteries more??? Hint: lead, and cadmium are vastly more toxic than lithium.

1) Lithium can (and is) recycled

2) A car's battery will probably last 12-15 years. The new technology from Maxwell (just purchased by Tesla this week) is said to prolong a battery life to 30 years

3) New battery tech is using less and less rare elements. Tesla reduced Cobalt to less than half and they expect to get rid of it altogether, for example

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MikeMelga 

So rice contributes 1.5% of global methane production. Only 1.5% While livestock produces 14.5%. Rice is feeding more people than livestock while producing 10 times less methane. Are you trying to prove yourself wrong?

 

Yes lithium is easy to recycle but that is completely beside the point. If I decide to dump 1000 tons of batteries in a lake. It is far more damaging if they are lead or cadmium batteries than if they are lithium because lithium is not very toxic metal. In fact it's also a medicine.

 

That was my analogy and you have to be a science retard, or desperate to defend an indefensible position to not get it.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

So rice contributes 1.5% of global methane production. Only 1.5% While livestock produces 14.5%. Rice is feeding more people than livestock while producing 10 times less methane.

 

I agree that beef consume should be reduced and replaced by other kinds of meats that produce much lower emissions, all while we finish inventing lab meat.

 

But with agriculture there is a general problem    Modern agriculture is destroying soils everywhere and no one seem to care.  We care only about maximizing production and keeping prices low, like always, without thinking for how long we can keep doing this.    And there is not enough investment in research about how to improve agriculture and massive production of food.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Krieg said:

But with agriculture there is a general problem    Modern agriculture is destroying soils everywhere and no one seem to care.  We care only about maximizing production and keeping prices low, like always, without thinking for how long we can keep doing this.    And there is not enough investment in research about how to improve agriculture and massive production of food.

Oh lots of people care. People who own well run, less damaging farms will tell you their great great grand father seemed to care too which is why the soil is so good. Even if great great grandfather didn't understand the science, crop rotation just seemed like a good idea.

 

But these are individual farmers with pride in their land not mega corporate farming.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dingell's farewell message to America includes dig at Trump"

 

Quote

DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) — On the day of his death, longtime Rep. John Dingell dictated a farewell message to America and used some of his final words to criticize President Donald Trump.

 

Dingell dictated the message to his wife and congressional successor Debbie Dingell Thursday in their suburban Detroit home. The Washington Post published the opinion piece on Friday.

 

“One of the advantages to knowing that your demise is imminent, and that reports of it will not be greatly exaggerated, is that you have a few moments to compose some parting thoughts,” Dingell said Thursday. “In our modern political age, the presidential bully pulpit seems dedicated to sowing division and denigrating, often in the most irrelevant and infantile personal terms, the political opposition.”

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

Oh lots of people care. People who own well run, less damaging farms will tell you their great great grand father seemed to care too which is why the soil is so good. Even if great great grandfather didn't understand the science, crop rotation just seemed like a good idea.

 

But these are individual farmers with pride in their land not mega corporate farming.

 

 

This sound like a optimistic wishful thinking that does not match with reality.  Yes, some people would care, you are right, but most people will be forced to move on because they have to eat today.

 

For example, back in my country there is a trend to farm avocado because hipsters are eating it like no one business and its profits are close to double compared to corn or rice.   The problem is avocado uses way too much water and damages the soil.   The trend is however unstoppable and we are by now the 4th producer of avocados worldwide last time I checked.

 

P.S., Notice farming in a third world country is not like farming in the first world.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avocados are only a newer trend here. Or are all Mexicans and Americans hipsters?

 

 

Quote

 

Avocados were first cultivated in South Central Mexico about 10,000 years ago.[9][10][11] In the early 1900s, avocados frequently went by the name alligator pear.[12] The Hass avocado is named after postal worker Rudolph Hass who purchased a seedling in 1926 from a California farmer and patented it in 1935.[13]

Guacamole has increased avocado sales in the US, especially on Super Bowl Sunday and Cinco de Mayo.[14] The rising consumption of guacamole is most likely due to the U.S. government lifting a ban on avocado imports in the 1990s and the growth of the U.S. Latino population.[15]

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

Avocados are only a newer trend here. Or are all Mexicans and Americans hipsters?

 

Avocados are extremely popular in Asia, including China.   However they use it most times to make juice.

 

And they are very popular in Australia and New Zeland too.   And of course USA.

 

The hipster reference is only because of the adoption they had in the past couple of years, as another "super food" after they've got tired of eating kale and quinoa.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, please tell us all again how Trump is not radicalizing his followers? Really, explain it to us. We'll wait.

Trump supporter attacks BBC cameraman at El Paso rally

 

Quote

Sporting a Make America Great Again cap, the man shoved and swore at the BBC's Ron Skeans and other news crews before being pulled away.

 

Mr Skeans said the "very hard shove" came from his blindside. "I didn't know what was going on."

 

Mr Trump saw the attack and confirmed Mr Skeans was well with a thumbs up after it happened.

 

The president has had a fractious relationship with the media from the very start of his time in office.

 

He has claimed journalists are "the enemy of the people" and slammed the "fake news" for reports he deems unfavourable.
 

Mr Skeans said the man almost knocked him and his camera over twice before he was wrestled away by a blogger.

 

President Trump checked they were well with a thumbs up, and continued his speech after Mr Skeans returned the gesture.

 

BBC Washington producer Eleanor Montague and Washington correspondent Gary O'Donoghue were sitting in front of the camera.

 

Ms Montague said the protester had attacked other news crews but Mr Skeans "got the brunt of it".

 

A campaign official for Mr Trump afterwards suggested the attacker was drunk. [My note: Well, we know about drunken Trump supporters here at TT, don't we?]

 

The president went to El Paso, on the US border with Mexico, to campaign for a border wall, a divisive issue which caused the longest government shutdown in US history.

 

Ms Montague said the president had spoken of "fake news" and how the media misrepresented him in the run up to the assault.

 

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr O'Donoghue said it was "an incredibly violent attack".

 

"This is a constant feature of these rallies - a goading of the crowds against the media," Mr O'Donoghue said, who added that he had been "spat at before".

 

 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

@MikeMelga 

So rice contributes 1.5% of global methane production. Only 1.5% While livestock produces 14.5%. Rice is feeding more people than livestock while producing 10 times less methane. Are you trying to prove yourself wrong?

No, the total is 16% but you need to include all agriculture and cattle, not just cows. I can't find an exact number, but my guess would be around 5-7%.

Feeding people is not the sole purpose of agriculture. From a more hedonistic point of view, one of our "missions" on earth is to have pleasure, otherwise all of us would just eat paste tube food.

Also rice won't provide you with all the necessary nutrients.

More, you can reduce CH4 cow emissions by either changing their diet (can reduce it drastically) or harvesting CH4. I've been on a farm in Portugal 25 years ago where they would collect CH4 and produce electricity. Banning/taxing beef is just a vegetarianism dream instead of a reasonable solution.

 

2 hours ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

 

Yes lithium is easy to recycle but that is completely beside the point. If I decide to dump 1000 tons of batteries in a lake.

Sounds like a bad movie plot from the 80's. Rare materials are not thrown away, they are very valuable.

 

2 hours ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

It is far more damaging if they are lead or cadmium batteries than if they are lithium because lithium is not very toxic metal. In fact it's also a medicine.

The environmental damage of lithium is the extraction process, not disposal.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fraufruit said:

Yet again, I can only say, Oh my god!

 

here

Although I despise him, he is right, the proposal is amateurish and not more than a political manifest.

This type of far left bullshit will scare the center voters from proper climate change handling.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MadAxeMurderer - if you haven't taken 5 minutes to read through the 14 page proposal from AOC , it might change your perspective on the bill.   I have posted the link twice already. 

 

Independent of your views on climate change, you might agree with MM that it reads like a manifesto.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019, 3:12:07, 2B_orNot2B said:

 

Since you caught my interest by using a double emphasis in your determination to assert that as albeit looks like more of a crumb than a fact do you happen to have a link to a reliable source for that claim?

 

2B

 

Hey, @balticus, do you want to go ahead now and answer 2b since you decided to come back and post more things that don't matter?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, balticus said:

Senate has uncovered no evidence of collusion.

 

So the takeaway is that Trey Gowdy's numerous house investigations of Hillary Clinton uncovered no illegality so, of course, there was none.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@balticus And what exactly is wrong with manifestos?

 

Well a torture and abuse immigrants or animals manifesto is distasteful. 

 

A "bring happiness to lonely old people", or "the younger generation have to save the planet because our generation have completely failed and don't care manifesto" is admirable.

 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MikeMelgaI don't know why I bother.

 

You complained about beef eaters being oppressed when rice is also bad for the environment. Quite a stupid thing to say because rice is vastly less bad.

 

So I drew the analogy: should we put more resources into stopping the dumping of lead batteries or lithium batteries. That concerns the toxicity of the two metals. The environmental cost of production is in no way relevant to my analogy. Toxicity. more toxicity. Only toxicity is relevant to my analogy, which wasn't a great analogy in the first place. I really dumbed it down

 

And I know you're a smart guy with a broad scientific knowledge, so it's infuriating to see acting just plain dumb to avoid engaging points that clash with your thesis.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

@MikeMelgaI don't know why I bother.

 

You complained about beef eaters being oppressed when rice is also bad for the environment. Quite a stupid thing to say because rice is vastly less bad.

Not vastly. Perhaps cow CH4 issue is 4x-5x worst. But the thing is, it is easier to handle cow CH4 emissions (diet changes, CH4 trapping) than it is with rice. Just forbidding or taxing it will just rage people like me. You can't solve everything (or almost nothing) with more taxes.

 

EDIT:found a value for cow CH4: 25% of all methane emissions, which means 4% of total green house gas emissions, which means, compared with 1.5% from rice, it is only 2.6x worst than rice.

https://bigthink.com/design-for-good/this-is-how-you-turn-cow-fart-gas-into-energy

 

So "vastly" is now just 2.6x.

 

Quote

 

So I drew the analogy: should we put more resources into stopping the dumping of lead batteries or lithium batteries. That concerns the toxicity of the two metals. The environmental cost of production is in no way relevant to my analogy. Toxicity. more toxicity. Only toxicity is relevant to my analogy, which wasn't a great analogy in the first place. I really dumbed it down

 

Hard to follow up with the analogy, because in the case of cow/rice, the toxicity product is the same (CH4), but it is easier to reduce with cows, which could probably lower absolut emissions below of rice, without having to cut on meat consumption.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now