How can climate policy prevent wars.?

Jakob wrote:
­
Can you imagine how climate policy can prevent wars.?

Bring up your best ideas please.

­

2 Corinthians 9:7; You must each decide in your heart how much to give. And don't give reluctantly or in response to pressure. "For God loves a person who gives cheerfully."
https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/9-7.htm

Don J. Easterbrook, in Evidence-Based Climate Science, 2011
5.1.1.6 The Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D.)
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900 A.D.
to 1300 A.D. when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than
at present.

These new records were correlated to data from other areas of the Mediterranean (Alboran Sea, Menorca basin and Aegean Sea) to show a regional signal of the basin to identify the Roman period (1-500 AC) as the warmest period of the last 2,000 years, 2ºC warmer than the average values at the end of the century.
https://web.ub.edu/en/web/actualitat/w/the-expansion-of-the-roman-empire-coincided-with-the-warmest-period-in-the-mediterranean-of-the-last-2000-years

Jakob wrote:
­


Can you imagine how climate policy can prevent wars.?

Bring up your best ideas please.
­

James_ wrote: I deleted my post. Anything I do I will be dancing for Swan. He literally owns my soul until I can flee the U.S. As he said, I'm his wife and he'll fock me for eternity so I can do nothing in life.

James_ wrote: Branner supports him owning me and I think Branner might be a cheese danish.

James_ wrote: I have to move out of the U.S. because Swan said he will not let me have a life unless he can exploit me.

James_ wrote:The U.S. has been facing depleted aquifers and drought.

Jakob wrote:
Can you imagine how climate policy can prevent wars.?

Bring up your best ideas please.
­

Jakob wrote:
­


There are many complicated kinds of war that climate policy can't prevent.
Maybe in those cases only a good peacemaking overwhelming force is the answer.

However I see some elements that can help eliminating some reasons for conflict.
For instance it can seem pretty foolish to me when a good democracy wants to pay a lot of money to other non democratic countries for energy they can produce cheaper themselves. When they do that they are also weakening the democratic force.

What do you think about that.?

Take a look:
("Hav" means sea.)

James_ wrote:

In the U.S., the electrical grid is outdated and overwhelmed.

Jakob wrote:
­

James_ wrote:

In the U.S., the electrical grid is outdated and overwhelmed.

Yes, that is a big job to fix, not only in the US, and it needs to be done.

Maybe it is time to remember why you went to the moon.

Civilization needs infrastructure.



­

Jakob wrote: Can you imagine how climate policy can prevent wars.?

Jakob wrote: Bring up your best ideas please.­

Jakob wrote:
­


IBdaMann

It is too often so deplorable that it defies description when climate deniers meddle in politics.­­

Jakob wrote:
You simply must not do anything good if there is a risk that it could reduce CO2 emissions.
People must not be advised to eat healthier,

Jakob wrote:
renewable energy must not be used and so on.

Jakob wrote:
­


GasGuzzler

Are you also IBdaMann, or don't you think he is smart enough to answer for himself.?
Or perhaps you simply have an inner urge to demonstrate your lack of competence in both science, debate culture and democracy. If so, I think you are doing well.


­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others when they prevent the transition to renewable energy. They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.



­

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others when they prevent the transition to renewable energy. They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.­

Jakob wrote: It is too often so deplorable that it defies description when climate deniers meddle in politics.

Jakob wrote: You simply must not do anything good if there is a risk that it could reduce CO2 emissions.

Jakob wrote:
­


There are many complicated kinds of war that climate policy can't prevent.
Maybe in those cases only a good peacemaking overwhelming force is the answer.

However I see some elements that can help eliminating some reasons for conflict.
For instance it can seem pretty foolish to me when a good democracy wants to pay a lot of money to other non democratic countries for energy they can produce cheaper themselves. When they do that they are also weakening the democratic force.

What do you think about that.?

Take a look:
("Hav" means sea.)

GasGuzzler wrote:
If you are ready for renewable energy, then you spend your money on it. I won't stand in your way. Just don't ask me to subsidize your piss poor purchase. Is that fair?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­


There are many complicated kinds of war that climate policy can't prevent.
Maybe in those cases only a good peacemaking overwhelming force is the answer.

However I see some elements that can help eliminating some reasons for conflict.
For instance it can seem pretty foolish to me when a good democracy wants to pay a lot of money to other non democratic countries for energy they can produce cheaper themselves. When they do that they are also weakening the democratic force.

What do you think about that.?

Take a look:
("Hav" means sea.)

'Democracy' is a cult term for a global dictatorship. Most counties don't like it when other countries try to take control, often results in war. Climate-Change, is just a tool for the global dictatorship to gain control. One global government, means no more war, right? Just like if we took away all the guns, there would be no more murder. If we re-distribute all the wealth, there would be no poverty. We all would simply be poor, and dependent on the 'democracy' to provide for our needs.

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others when they prevent the transition to renewable energy. They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.



­

Swan wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others when they prevent the transition to renewable energy. They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.



­

The climate has been warming steadily for 22,000 years, and humanity has nothing to do with the warming

Swan wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others when they prevent the transition to renewable energy. They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.



­

The climate has been warming steadily for 22,000 years, and humanity has nothing to do with the warming

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others when they prevent the transition to renewable energy. They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.



­

The climate has been warming steadily for 22,000 years, and humanity has nothing to do with the warming

When I was in the U.S. Navy, we ran over this submarine; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-314

6 Russian (Soviet, they could've been Ukrainian) nationals died and that wasn't in the news. I worked in 3 MMR, P - 4 Division. We lost fires in one boiler due to fuel oil contamination (I went on watch AFTER this happened). The screw of the Soviet submarine ruptured a fuel tank our boiler was feeding off of.
Losing fires in the burners allows for water hammers. That is water molecules in the steam that has been generated. A ruptured steam pipe will kill everyone in the engine room in 6 seconds. It's 1,200 psi at over 980º F./527º C.
When we got back stateside, an E-4 in our engine room went out drinking. A truck ran a red light and he T-Boned it. 2 more people died. in a span of 6 months my engine room was involved in 8 deaths.
Yours won't bother me Alan. Those 8 people, what should I say about them?
Kind of why I've tried to get along with people, I know what the alternative is.
And Alan, we ran over the Russian submarine because we could. I actually know what happened and yet neither Russia or the U.S. has talked about it.
If you ever don't want to know something Alan, serve in the military. There are things I'd like to forget.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others when they prevent the transition to renewable energy. They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.



­

The climate has been warming steadily for 22,000 years, and humanity has nothing to do with the warming

When I was in the U.S. Navy, we ran over this submarine; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-314

6 Russian (Soviet, they could've been Ukrainian) nationals died and that wasn't in the news. I worked in 3 MMR, P - 4 Division. We lost fires in one boiler due to fuel oil contamination (I went on watch AFTER this happened). The screw of the Soviet submarine ruptured a fuel tank our boiler was feeding off of.
Losing fires in the burners allows for water hammers. That is water molecules in the steam that has been generated. A ruptured steam pipe will kill everyone in the engine room in 6 seconds. It's 1,200 psi at over 980º F./527º C.
When we got back stateside, an E-4 in our engine room went out drinking. A truck ran a red light and he T-Boned it. 2 more people died. in a span of 6 months my engine room was involved in 8 deaths.
Yours won't bother me Alan. Those 8 people, what should I say about them?
Kind of why I've tried to get along with people, I know what the alternative is.
And Alan, we ran over the Russian submarine because we could. I actually know what happened and yet neither Russia or the U.S. has talked about it.
If you ever don't want to know something Alan, serve in the military. There are things I'd like to forget.

You were in the Norwegian Navy.

Q: How do you sink a Norwegian submarine?
A: Scuba-dive down and knock on the door.

Q: How do you sink a Norwegian submarine again?
A: Dive down and knock on the door again. Wait for them to open the window and say, "You aren't fooling us this time!"

Q: How do you sink a Swedish submarine?
A: Give it a Norwegian crew.

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:
If you are ready for renewable energy, then you spend your money on it. I won't stand in your way. Just don't ask me to subsidize your piss poor purchase. Is that fair?

No that is not fair.

There are many people in the city that has no option to use electricity based on renewable energy. So you have to help them with that.

And when it is done, and you don't like it, then you can just buy a gas generator for your own house, so you don't have to use sustainable energy.

That will be fair and provide the people with real freedom to choose.

­

Jakob wrote:
­Can you imagine how climate policy can prevent wars.?

Bring up your best ideas please.
­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­


Can you imagine how climate policy can prevent wars.?

Bring up your best ideas please.
­

Can you imagine how climate policy can cause war?

The laws of physics show it's not possible to warm the earth without additional energy, so intelligent people will get a little pissed off when they are forced into driving an electric car to go shopping for a new gas stove and find out the government will only allow electric.

Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is the lifeblood of any developed country's economy. Climate policy's will obliterate wealth for millions if fully implemented, but we know that IS what you want. Tell me I'm wrong. There will be millions and millions of snot nosed idiots that will suddenly appreciate the wealthy person that previously employed them.

This is the bullshit that will cause civil war.

Jakob wrote:
­


There are many complicated kinds of war that climate policy can't prevent.
Maybe in those cases only a good peacemaking overwhelming force is the answer.

However I see some elements that can help eliminating some reasons for conflict.
For instance it can seem pretty foolish to me when a good democracy wants to pay a lot of money to other non democratic countries for energy they can produce cheaper themselves. When they do that they are also weakening the democratic force.

What do you think about that.?

Take a look:
("Hav" means sea.)

James_ wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­


There are many complicated kinds of war that climate policy can't prevent.
Maybe in those cases only a good peacemaking overwhelming force is the answer.

However I see some elements that can help eliminating some reasons for conflict.
For instance it can seem pretty foolish to me when a good democracy wants to pay a lot of money to other non democratic countries for energy they can produce cheaper themselves. When they do that they are also weakening the democratic force.

What do you think about that.?

Take a look:
("Hav" means sea.)

In the U.S., the electrical grid is outdated and overwhelmed.

James_ wrote:
Montana, USA can be a very windy place just as Wyoming to its south is. But there's no infrastructure in those 2 states to support the installation of wind turbines.

James_ wrote:
With the money spent on wars, that could've been better spent. I did the math for my own invention. If it works one unit could fit inside of a 5 story building and possibly power over 150,000 homes.

James_ wrote:
I think Western countries as you've said should've supported democracies more with foreign trade.

James_ wrote:
But what Israel has been allowed to do to Palestine tends to show what the West really supports. The U.S. bought land from both France and Russia. No war involved and no problems afterwards.

James_ wrote:
p.s., With a tidal generator, New York City is a minimum of 1.6 ft/0.4m and up to
5.9 ft/1.75m. A float could rotate a hoist lifting a weight. When the weight slowly descends it could power a generator. That's using gravity to create energy, it is not possible. Science simply does not allow for that kind of thinking because that would be a perpetual motion machine. I mean for Heaven's sake gravity waves would be observed because of when the float rises and then descends. That simply can't happen.

p.s.s., To be technically correct, when a float would rise and then descend, a change in the strength of the Earth's gravitational field would be observed.

When the tide rolls in and then out again, how much force does that water have?
The lateral movement of the tide probably generates the most power and this would be at depth where there is the most force.

Jakob wrote:
­

James_ wrote:

In the U.S., the electrical grid is outdated and overwhelmed.

Yes, that is a big job to fix, not only in the US, and it needs to be done.

Jakob wrote:
­Maybe it is time to remember why you went to the moon.

Jakob wrote:
­Civilization needs infrastructure.
­

James_ wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

James_ wrote:
In the U.S., the electrical grid is outdated and overwhelmed.

Yes, that is a big job to fix, not only in the US, and it needs to be done.
Maybe it is time to remember why you went to the moon.

Civilization needs infrastructure.
­

With the $2 Trillion the U.S. has spent on wars,

James_ wrote:
improving infrastructure would've cost much less than that.

James_ wrote:
This in a sense shows that adapting to climate change is not a priority.

James_ wrote:
The infrastructure is not in place to power electric cars using green energy.

James_ wrote:
With emissions, NOx and SOx could help to speed up this current warm period.

James_ wrote:
The ozone hole over Antarctica is an example.