Breaking!! Bill Gates Cancels Apocalypse-Plants Rejoice!!!

[Whiskey]

Will this affect solar projects with a 137-year ROI, windmills made from and operated with petrochemicals LOL,
or that damn train to Fresno?

[Gunnar]

If HOH thinks that Bill Gates is somehow opposed to green energy and technology and striving to mitigate climate change, he couldn't possibly be more wrong! Here's what Gates has to say about subject:
Though climate change may not be likely to cause human extinction in the immediate future, Gates still emphasizes the need to accelerate innovation in renewable energy sources and technology and seriously reducing carbon emissions, and lauds the fact that progress has been made in slowing the projected future increases in greenhouse emissions. He supports international cooperation in mitigating climate change, along with other important initiatives such as reducing poverty and improving access to healthcare. Maybe he doesn't currently rate climate mitigation as the absolute highest priority but he certainly rates it as among the higher priorities that should concern us, and he certainly doesn't disapprove of increasing use of wind and solar power and other renewables.

Don't ignore this important comment from Bill Gates:

When everyone has access to affordable, reliable clean energy, the world will be more prosperous and more resilient to climate change. Through Breakthrough Energy, I fund work on innovations that will help us make that transformation.

Like it or not, it is certainly true that failure to achieve a greener, more sustainable energy system is ultimately going to cost us far more economically and environmentally than the costs of achieving it.

Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) is an organization doing great work demonstrating unequivocally how green energy technologies and improved energy efficiencies save industries and buildings millions of dollars annually in both fuel and maintenance costs. Their site is very interesting and shows a lot of the innovative projects and initiatives they are working on. I encourage everyone to visit their site.

[Whiskey]

If HOH thinks that Bill Gates is somehow opposed to green energy and technology and striving to mitigate climate change, he couldn't possibly be more wrong! Here's what Gates has to say about subject:
Though climate change may not be likely to cause human extinction in the immediate future, Gates still emphasizes the need to accelerate innovation in renewable energy sources and technology and seriously reducing carbon emissions, and lauds the fact that progress has been made in slowing the projected future increases in greenhouse emissions. He supports international cooperation in mitigating climate change, along with other important initiatives such as reducing poverty and improving access to healthcare. Maybe he doesn't currently rate climate mitigation as the absolute highest priority but he certainly rates it as among the higher priorities that should concern us, and he certainly doesn't disapprove of increasing use of wind and solar power and other renewables.

Don't ignore this important comment from Bill Gates:

When everyone has access to affordable, reliable clean energy, the world will be more prosperous and more resilient to climate change. Through Breakthrough Energy, I fund work on innovations that will help us make that transformation.

Like it or not, it is certainly true that failure to achieve a greener, more sustainable energy system is ultimately going to cost us far more economically and environmentally than the costs of achieving it.

Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) is an organization doing great work demonstrating unequivocally how green energy technologies and improved energy efficiencies save industries and buildings millions of dollars annually in both fuel and maintenance costs. Their site is very interesting and shows a lot of the innovative projects and initiatives they are working on. I encourage everyone to visit their site.

No sarcasm question - do you think green energy and renewable energy would be more advanced if past developments and standards had been more realistic?

I do. I think the biggest hindrance to improved energy efficiency is the damned grift of the improved energy industry. I think the petrochemical industry is laughing.

[Whiskey]

Here is an example of the BS and grift.

Multi tenant construction may require ERV units to recover the heat from exhaust air. The air passes over an enthalpy wheel. It requires at least one ERV for every residential unit. That meets rhe LEEDS standard. It doesn’t recover jack squat.

A single ducted roof fan would be significantly more efficient, but does not get a LEEDS cookie. So we laugh and play the wasteful game. It is a sham.

[canpakes]

Here is an example of the BS and grift.

Multi tenant construction may require ERV units to recover the heat from exhaust air. The air passes over an enthalpy wheel. It requires at least one ERV for every residential unit. That meets rhe LEEDS standard. It doesn’t recover jack squat.

A single ducted roof fan would be significantly more efficient, but does not get a LEEDS cookie. So we laugh and play the wasteful game. It is a sham.

Climate change and LEED are very different subjects and the aim of LEED construction includes ‘sustainability’, which doesn’t currently rule out use of any particular fuel (wait for 5.0 for that). You are not having the same conversation as Gunnar.

You can receive LEED credits for having a bicycle rack planned into your project. It would still count even if your employees all used diesel powered bikes. : D

[Gunnar]

No sarcasm question - do you think green energy and renewable energy would be more advanced if past developments and standards had been more realistic?

I suppose that's possible, but the fact still remains that renewable energy is advancing around the world faster than most people realize, and already costs less per kilowatt hour than fossil fuel in many, if not, most areas.

I do. I think the biggest hindrance to improved energy efficiency is the damned grift of the improved energy industry. I think the petrochemical industry is laughing.

Perhaps there is some of that happening and should be watched out for. Whenever there is money and potential profits involved, it will inevitably attract some dishonest opportunists eager to take unfair advantage of others.

[canpakes]

If HOH thinks that Bill Gates is somehow opposed to green energy and technology and striving to mitigate climate change, he couldn't possibly be more wrong!

The ‘catastrophic climate change’ claim is promoted by conservatives as their idea of what liberals supposedly believe, and they do so at a ratio probably 100,000 times greater than any tree-hugging liberals claim it. Hound’s claims are predominantly conservative propaganda.

Gates even makes no bones about the issue in the image that Hound posted: “…climate change will have serious consequences— particularly for people in the poorest countries …”. Just because we may be better insulated from the effects of this doesn’t mean that we are not bound by any moral imperative to be smarter with fossil fuels and resources.

No one I know ever claimed that humans can’t survive any of the predicted climate change trends (ask anyone who lives in Phoenix or Vegas, lol). But there is very real fallout and expense associated with climate changes. Miami is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to raise streets, which is a cost shared by all residents there. And as optimal crop zones shift with the changes, we may end up seeing the best areas for, say, growing wheat and corn shift northward out of the prime US growing areas, reducing available acreage or pushing production into other countries. We already know that very small increases in the average temperature decreases yields for this and several other reasons.

From: https://newbrunswick.rutgers.edu/news/r ... ood-supply

The researchers looked at global data from more than 12,000 regions in 55 nations, focusing on crops that provide most of the world’s calories: wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, barley and cassava.

Previous studies failed to account for realistic adaptation by farmers, assuming either “perfect” adaptation or none, the researchers said. The new study is the first to systematically measure how much farmers adjust to changing conditions. In many regions, for example, farmers switch crop varieties, shift planting and harvesting dates or alter fertilizer use.

The researchers estimate that adjustments made by farmers can offset about one-third of the losses caused by climate change by 2100 if emissions keep rising. But the rest of the losses will still happen.

“Offsetting climate damages requires faster innovation in agricultural technology,” said Kopp, who also is director of the Megalopolitan Coastal Transformation Hub at Rutgers.

The steepest losses occur at the extremes of the agricultural economy: in modern breadbaskets that now enjoy some of the world’s best growing conditions and in subsistence farming communities relying on small cassava harvests. In terms of food production capacity from staple crops, the analysis finds yield losses may average 41% in the wealthiest regions and 28% in the lowest income regions by 2100.

The study also found that rice might benefit from warmer nights, but other crops such as wheat, corn and soybeans will likely see declines.

U.S. agriculture will be hit hard, the researchers said.

“Places in the Midwest that are great for growing corn and soybeans now will suffer a lot in a warmer future,” said lead author Andrew Hultgren at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. “We might not have a corn belt in the future.”

Good ol’ MAGA … Throwing the whole country under the economic and agricultural bus while attempting to ‘own the libs’.

[canpakes]

I do. I think the biggest hindrance to improved energy efficiency is the damned grift of the improved energy industry. I think the petrochemical industry is laughing.

Perhaps there is some of that happening and should be watched out for. Whenever there is money and potential profits involved, it will inevitably attract some dishonest opportunists eager to take unfair advantage of others.

Record profits realized by oil producers = Good! ‘Murica!
Profits realized by US alt energy producers = Bad! Grift! Libtards! Ripoff!

[Gunnar]

The ‘catastrophic climate change’ claim is promoted by conservatives as their idea of what liberals supposedly believe, and they do so at a ratio probably 100,000 times greater than any tree-hugging liberals claim it. Hound’s claims are predominantly conservative propaganda.

Gates even makes no bones about the issue in the image that Hound posted: “…climate change will have serious consequences— particularly for people in the poorest countries …”. Just because we may be better insulated from the effects of this doesn’t mean that we are not bound by any moral imperative to be smarter with fossil fuels and resources.

No one I know ever claimed that humans can’t survive any of the predicted climate change trends (ask anyone who lives in Phoenix or Vegas, lol). But there is very real fallout and expense associated with climate changes. Miami is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to raise streets, which is a cost shared by all residents there. And as optimal crop zones shift with the changes, we may end up seeing the best areas for, say, growing wheat and corn shift northward out of the prime US growing areas, reducing available acreage or pushing production into other countries. We already know that very small increases in the average temperature decreases yields for this and several other reasons.

From: https://newbrunswick.rutgers.edu/news/r ... ood-supply

The researchers looked at global data from more than 12,000 regions in 55 nations, focusing on crops that provide most of the world’s calories: wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, barley and cassava.

Previous studies failed to account for realistic adaptation by farmers, assuming either “perfect” adaptation or none, the researchers said. The new study is the first to systematically measure how much farmers adjust to changing conditions. In many regions, for example, farmers switch crop varieties, shift planting and harvesting dates or alter fertilizer use.

The researchers estimate that adjustments made by farmers can offset about one-third of the losses caused by climate change by 2100 if emissions keep rising. But the rest of the losses will still happen.

“Offsetting climate damages requires faster innovation in agricultural technology,” said Kopp, who also is director of the Megalopolitan Coastal Transformation Hub at Rutgers.

The steepest losses occur at the extremes of the agricultural economy: in modern breadbaskets that now enjoy some of the world’s best growing conditions and in subsistence farming communities relying on small cassava harvests. In terms of food production capacity from staple crops, the analysis finds yield losses may average 41% in the wealthiest regions and 28% in the lowest income regions by 2100.

The study also found that rice might benefit from warmer nights, but other crops such as wheat, corn and soybeans will likely see declines.

U.S. agriculture will be hit hard, the researchers said.

“Places in the Midwest that are great for growing corn and soybeans now will suffer a lot in a warmer future,” said lead author Andrew Hultgren at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. “We might not have a corn belt in the future.”

Good ol’ MAGA … Throwing the whole country under the economic and agricultural bus while attempting to ‘own the libs’.

Thanks for that valuable information, canpakes!

[Gunnar]

Perhaps there is some of that happening and should be watched out for. Whenever there is money and potential profits involved, it will inevitably attract some dishonest opportunists eager to take unfair advantage of others.

Record profits realized by oil producers = Good! ‘Murica!
Profits realized by US alt energy producers = Bad! Grift! Libtards! Ripoff!

There's just no end to their hypocrisy and projection!