Post #5393 by Dope1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (20)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 1

nd even more disappointed at the responses (and lack of same) to the question on climate change. When asked to raise their hand if they believe humans have contributed to climate change, it immediately descended into mass chaos, led by DeSantis chiding the moderators for treating them like school children (raising their hands), but it was DeSantis who acted like a school child (and not a good one at that!). The verbal responses ranged from outright denial to blaming it on other countries. No one seemed to think that the US needs to take any action to reduce our own contribution to climate change.

There's an easy answer to climate change that every candidate should use:

Despite what you've been told, the planet is not going to burn and we're not going to die from climate change in a year. Or 10. Or 100 years. Let's establish that. The Earth's climate changes all the time - at points in the past it has been both warmer and colder than it is today - and the planet's ecosystems adapt as they need.

Now. How should *we* adapt? That's the question at hand. We should be looking at *the best and cleanest ways* to generate electricity as a matter of principle. That means building more nuclear power plants, more hydroelectric plants, geothermal plants. Also in that vein some carbon fuels are still both necessary and useful: natural gas burns cleanly and the United States has abundant supplies of it. Internal combustion engines are vastly more efficient and cleaner today that in years past and need to be with us for the foreseeable future, and that means extracting oil in responsible ways, which we know how to do.

Electric vehicles are not the panacea the public has been led to believe they are - every Prius on the road today thanks to the invasive mining required to make its batteries can a BIGGER carbon footprint that gas cars do. And unless the electricity used to charge the batteries is itself comes from a clean source, then the benefits aren't there. Battery technology needs to advance past the point where we pay money to the worst climate offender on the planet - China - to create a product that doesn't move the needle the way everyone thinks it does.

And finally, if we REALLY want to fight climate change and alter the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere, there's one proven way to do it. It's very, very simple: Plant trees. Anyone scoffing at that needs to go back to high school biology and understand what trees do for the planet and for the atmosphere.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/...
https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/a...

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (20)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.