Your Weather, Our Weather (2 Viewers)

Huntn said:

My impression is that the reason the climate crisis will not be corrected in a timely fashion is capitalism. Entities that want to hold onto their accumulation of wealth. We take small stabs at it but we just wasted 30 years in denial, and dragging our feet. Then there is the rest of the planet and countries that still burn coal. Gosh, we’d have to spend wealth on them. Do you see that happening?

Click to expand...

My state didn't waste those 30 years. We went to work in the 90s to convert to sustainable and renewable energy sources.

The mayors of our largest city has been following the Kyoto and Paris accords since they were written. In fact the first mayor who did that here went around the nation trying to get other mayors to follow the Kyoto accords.

All it takes is to not vote for conservatives. Conservatives won't allow anything to happen that combats climate change. In fact, they take steps to make it worse.

We need to stop coming up with excuses or fingers to point. We need to do what my state and Hawaii have done.

Excuses about who will make money or not are just that. Excuses. Elect democrats and you will have the changes we need to combat climate change.

We already did our part here in my state. It wasn't hard. No one sacrificed anything except high electric bills and dirty air.

Huntn said:

It’s called Capialism, you’ve got to make a profit right? Note, I’m not arguing for Capialism, but heavily regulated Capitolism that would mandate things like you just mentioned, and other things like lowering medical costsand the cost of higher education. Now should we hold our breath for this?

Click to expand...

Yes the reason why that has happened for so long is capitalism.

Capitalism that isn't properly regulated only results in monopolies and a destroyed economy.

The constitution gives the congress the right to regulate business and capitalism. It's just too bad that people have been lied to and now believe that proper regulation on capitalism is bad.

Proper regulation on capitalism protects capitalism from destroying a nation.

Will we get that proper regulation? Probably not but electing people who remove more regulation isn't the answer either.

I'm a baby boomer. I got to grow up in the results of FDR and the New Deal. Most regulations we used to have on business that protected our nation were established in those years of the New Deal. They were established for very good reasons. The last 40 years of every time a conservative gets the White House our economy crashes should teach people that conservative economics is toxic to any nation that tries to implement it.

LovesMusic7360 said:

My state...

Click to expand...

What state are you in? You're referring to "my state" often and in a lot of threads. It would be helpful to know what state you are in for people like me that want to read more about the things you mention.

LA - L.A. said:

What state are you in? You're referring to "my state" often and in a lot of threads. It would be helpful to know what state you are in for people like me that want to read more about the things you mention.

Click to expand...

Washington would be my guess.

LovesMusic7360 said:

My state didn't waste those 30 years. We went to work in the 90s to convert to sustainable and renewable energy sources.

The mayors of our largest city has been following the Kyoto and Paris accords since they were written. In fact the first mayor who did that here went around the nation trying to get other mayors to follow the Kyoto accords.

All it takes is to not vote for conservatives. Conservatives won't allow anything to happen that combats climate change. In fact, they take steps to make it worse.

We need to stop coming up with excuses or fingers to point. We need to do what my state and Hawaii have done.

Excuses about who will make money or not are just that. Excuses. Elect democrats and you will have the changes we need to combat climate change.

We already did our part here in my state. It wasn't hard. No one sacrificed anything except high electric bills and dirty air.

Click to expand...

It’s a tragedy that more states are not more like yours.. The sad thing is when you look at the big picture.

LovesMusic7360 said:

Yes the reason why that has happened for so long is capitalism.

Capitalism that isn't properly regulated only results in monopolies and a destroyed economy.

The constitution gives the congress the right to regulate business and capitalism. It's just too bad that people have been lied to and now believe that proper regulation on capitalism is bad.

Proper regulation on capitalism protects capitalism from destroying a nation.

Will we get that proper regulation? Probably not but electing people who remove more regulation isn't the answer either.

I'm a baby boomer. I got to grow up in the results of FDR and the New Deal. Most regulations we used to have on business that protected our nation were established in those years of the New Deal. They were established for very good reasons. The last 40 years of every time a conservative gets the White House our economy crashes should teach people that conservative economics is toxic to any nation that tries to implement it.

Click to expand...

Agree! For as long as I can remember, the only message coming from conservatives is that regulations are too much elect me and I will reduce regulations and reduce your taxes. With zero discussion about what we want to achieve with our taxes.

Huntn said:

It’s a tragedy that more states are not more like yours.. The sad thing is when you look at the big picture.

Climate Research and the Effects of Global Warming | Saving Earth | Encyclopedia Britannica

Modern research into climatic variation and change is based on a variety of empirical and theoretical lines of inquiry.

www.britannica.com

Agree! For as long as I can remember, the only message coming from conservatives is that regulations are too much elect me and I will reduce regulations and reduce your taxes. With zero discussion about what we want to achieve with our taxes.

Click to expand...

It is extremely irresponsible to remove most regulations on business. Yes there are some regulations that aren't needed but most are.

It's just as extremely irresponsible to lower taxes so much that we don't have the money to pay our nation's bills.

It's extremely irresponsible to slash spending on needed programs while increasing spending on programs that are already properly funded. Such as the military.

The responsible thing to do is to return to the taxes and regulation that caused America to become super power.

The world is off track to meet its climate goals and the public is to blame, Darren Woods, chief executive of oil giant ExxonMobil, has claimed – prompting a backlash from climate experts.

As the world’s largest investor-owned oil company, Exxon is among the top contributors to global planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions. But in an interview, published on Tuesday, Woods argued that big oil is not primarily responsible for the climate crisis.

The real issue, Woods said, is that the clean-energy transition may prove too expensive for consumers’ liking.

“The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who’s willing to pay for it,” he told Fortune last week. “The people who are generating those emissions need to be aware of and pay the price for generating those emissions. That is ultimately how you solve the problem.”…….

Experts say Woods’s rhetoric is part of a larger attempt to skirt climate accountability. No new major oil and gas infrastructure can be built if the world is to avoid breaching agreed temperature limits but Exxon, along with other major oil companies currently basking in record profits, is pushing ahead with aggressive fossil-fuel expansion plans.

“It’s like a drug lord blaming everyone but himself for drug problems,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia business school.

“I hate to tell you, but you’re the chief executive of the largest publicly traded oil company, you have influence, you make decisions that matter. Exxon are at the mercy of markets but they are also shaping them, they are shaping policy. So no, you can’t blame the public for the failure to fix climate change.”


Troves of internal documents and analyses have over the past decade established that Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating as far back as the 1970s, but forcefully and successfully worked to sow doubt about the climate crisis and stymie action to clamp down on fossil fuel usage. The revelations have inspired litigation against Exxonacross the US.

“What they’re really trying to do is to whitewash their own history, to make it invisible,” said Robert Brulle, an environment policy expert at Brown University who has researched climate disinformation spread by the fossil-fuel industry.

A 2021 analysis also demonstrated that Exxon had downplayed its own role in the climate crisis for decades in public-facing messaging.

“The playbook is this: sell consumers a product that you know is dangerous, while publicly denying or downplaying those dangers. Then, when the dangers are no longer deniable, deny responsibility and blame the consumer,” said Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard historian of science and co-author of the 2021 paper.…….

I think this fits this thread the best, since the advertisement campaign will include promoting clean energy projects. I think this is a good approach to get a national conversation going and to get people to embrace the change we need.

It's also an opportunity for any male, blue collar workers on this site who live in North Carolina, Michigan, or Pennsylvania to earn some extra money.


The project synopsis:

- We are looking to inspire and motivate citizens to embrace advanced manufacturing and clean energy projects coming to their state.

– We want to communicate that these projects are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to give our county a major boost by creating hundreds of jobs and putting dollars into our economy. We’re not just opening doors today – we’re unlocking new potential and fostering a community where both tradition and progress can flourish.

– Other towns are already reaping the benefits of advanced manufacturing projects and clean energy projects – this is our chance to get in on the action.

– Protecting local air and water, and keeping our town beautiful comes with economic benefits. These projects are a way to lift our economy, all while preserving the history and culture of our town for our children. More money in the local economy will help our favorite small businesses get by; local money will go on to support our schools and other crucial local projects.

– Most importantly, new jobs from these projects aren’t just for us today. They’ll be here for our kids tomorrow, so that this community can thrive for generations to come.

Click to expand...

OXFORD, England (AP) — Humanity has only two years left “to save the world” by making dramatic changes in the way it spews heat-trapping emissions and it has even less time to act to get the finances behind such a massive shift, the head of the United Nations climate agency said.

With governments of the world facing a 2025 deadline for new and stronger plans to curb carbon pollution, nearly half of the world’s populations voting in elections this year, and crucial global finance meetings later this month in Washington, United Nations executive climate secretary Simon Stiell said Wednesday he knows his warning may sound melodramatic. But he said action over the next two years is “essential.”

“We still have a chance to make greenhouse gas emissions tumble, with a new generation of national climate plans. But we need these stronger plans, now,” Stiell said in a speech at the Chatham House think tank in London. He suggested that climate action is not just for powerful people to address — in a not-so-veiled reference to the electoral calendar this year.…..

For $5m, Louisiana’s flagship university will let an oil company weigh in on faculty research activities. Or, for $100,000, a corporation can participate in a research study, with “robust” reviewing powers and access to all resulting intellectual property.

Those are the conditions outlined in a boilerplate document that Louisiana State University’s fundraising arm circulated to oil majors and chemical companies affiliated with the Louisiana Chemical Association, an industry lobbying group, according to emails disclosed in response to a public records request by the Lens.

Records show that after Shell donated $25m in 2022 to LSU to create the Institute for Energy Innovation, the university gave the fossil fuel corporation license to influence research and coursework for the university’s new concentration in carbon capture, use and storage.


Afterward, LSU’s fundraising entity, the LSU Foundation, used this partnership as a model to shop around to members of the Louisiana Chemical Association, such as ExxonMobil, Air Products and CF Industries, which have proposed carbon capture projects in Louisiana.

For $2m, Exxon became the institute’s first “strategic partner-level donor”, a position that came with robust review of academic study output and with the ability to focus research activities. Another eight companies have discussed similar deals with LSU, according to a partnership update that LSU sent to Shell last summer.

Some students, academics and experts said such relationships raise questions about academic freedom and public trust.…..

Optimus Prime said:

For $5m, Louisiana’s flagship university will let an oil company weigh in on faculty research activities. Or, for $100,000, a corporation can participate in a research study, with “robust” reviewing powers and access to all resulting intellectual property.

Those are the conditions outlined in a boilerplate document that Louisiana State University’s fundraising arm circulated to oil majors and chemical companies affiliated with the Louisiana Chemical Association, an industry lobbying group, according to emails disclosed in response to a public records request by the Lens.

Records show that after Shell donated $25m in 2022 to LSU to create the Institute for Energy Innovation, the university gave the fossil fuel corporation license to influence research and coursework for the university’s new concentration in carbon capture, use and storage.


Afterward, LSU’s fundraising entity, the LSU Foundation, used this partnership as a model to shop around to members of the Louisiana Chemical Association, such as ExxonMobil, Air Products and CF Industries, which have proposed carbon capture projects in Louisiana.

For $2m, Exxon became the institute’s first “strategic partner-level donor”, a position that came with robust review of academic study output and with the ability to focus research activities. Another eight companies have discussed similar deals with LSU, according to a partnership update that LSU sent to Shell last summer.

Some students, academics and experts said such relationships raise questions about academic freedom and public trust.…..

Louisiana’s flagship university lets oil firms influence research – for a price

Louisiana State University allowed Shell to influence studies after a $25m donation and sought funds from other fossil fuel firms

www.theguardian.com

Click to expand...

Louisiana could raise a lot more money than that by taxing all the oil and gas moving through the state, like all other states do. From what I read, the government of Louisiana could be one of the best funded state governments in the country if they taxed oil and gas transportation at the lowest rate that other states charge.

Louisiana could provide a lot more services to people who need help, and fund a lot of infrastructure improvements and maintenance if they taxed oil and gas transportation through the state.

Instead, the state allows the oil and gas industry to throw table scraps at them in return for being able to corrupt scientific research that might be inconvenient to them.

Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.

Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating above preindustrial levels, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit will be met.

Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.


Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.

“I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” said Gretta Pecl, at the University of Tasmania. “[Authorities] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.”……..

Vermont is poised to pass a groundbreaking measure forcing major polluting companies to help pay for damages caused by the climate crisis, in a move being closely watched by other states including New York and California.

Modeled after the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program, which forces companies to pay for toxic waste cleanup, the climate superfund bill would charge major fossil fuel companies doing business within the state billions of dollars for their past emissions.

The measure would make Vermont the first US state to hold fossil fuel companies liable for their planet-heating pollution.

“If you contributed to a mess, you should play a role in cleaning it up,” Elena Mihaly, vice-president of the Conservation Law Foundation’s Vermont chapter, which is campaigning for the bill, said in an interview.


If passed, the bill will face a steep uphill battle in the courts. But supporters say the first-of-its-kind legislation could be a model for the rest of the country.

Four other states are weighing similar initiatives. Senators Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland also attempted to include a federal version in the infrastructure bill passed in 2022, though it was omitted from the final draft. (The measure would have raised $500bn.)…..

Florida will eliminate climate change as a priority in making energy policy decisions, despite the threats it faces from powerful hurricanes, extreme heat and worsening toxic algae blooms.


On Wednesday, the state’s governor, Ron DeSantis, signed the legislation, which is set to go into effect on July 1.

The measure also removes most references to climate change in state law, bans offshore wind turbines in state waters and weakens regulations on natural gas pipelines.


The legislation I signed today [will] keep windmills off our beaches, gas in our tanks, and China out of our state,” the governor said, according to the DeSantis-friendly outlet Florida’s Voice, which was the first to report that he had signed the bill. “We’re restoring sanity in our approach to energy and rejecting the agenda of the radical green zealots.”…..

The 2024 hurricane season looks scary

Some of the world’s most profitable – and most polluting corporations – have invested in carbon offset projects that have fundamental failings and are “probably junk”, suggesting industry claims about greenhouse gas reductions were likely overblown, according to new analysis.

Delta, Gucci, Volkswagen, ExxonMobil, Disney, easyJet, and Nestlé are among the major corporations to have purchased millions of carbon credits from climate friendly projects that are “likely junk” or worthless when it comes to offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions, according to a classification system developed by Corporate Accountability, a non-profit, transnational corporate watchdog

Some of these companies no longer use CO2 offsets amid mounting evidence that carbon trading do not lead to the claimed emissions cuts – and in some cases may even cause environmental and social harms.


However, the multibillion-dollar voluntary carbon trading industry is still championed by many corporations including oil and gas majors, airlines, automakers, tourism, fast-food and beverage brands, fashion houses, banks, and tech firms as the bedrock of climate action – a way of claiming to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint while continuing to rely on fossil fuels and unsustainable supply chains.

Yet, for 33 of the top 50 corporate buyers, more than a third of their entire offsets portfolio is “likely junk” – suggesting at least some claims about carbon neutrality and emission reductions have been exaggerated according to the analysis.

The fundamental failings leading to a “likely junk” ranking include whether emissions cuts would have happened anyway, as is often the case with large hydroelectric dams, or if the emissions were just shifted elsewhere, a common issue in forestry offset projects.……

This could have gone in a number of threads
==================================

US politics is an outlier bastion of climate denial with nearly one in four members of Congress dismissing the reality of climate change, even as alarm has grown among the American public over dangerous global heating, an analysis has found.

A total of 123 elected federal representatives – 100 in the House of Representatives and 23 US senators – deny the existence of human-caused climate change, all of them Republicans, according to a recent study of statements made by current members.

“It’s definitely concerning,” said Kat So, campaign manager for energy and environment campaigns at the Center for American Progress, who wrote the report.

The report defined climate deniers as those who say that the climate crisis is not real or not primarily caused by humans, or claim that climate science is not settled, that extreme weather is not caused by global warming or that planet-warming pollution is beneficial.

It also highlights examples of denial from representatives.

“Of course the climate is changing,” the Texas senator Ted Cruz said in 2018. “The climate has been changing from the dawn of time. The climate will change as long as we have a planet Earth.”

Other instances are more recent.

“We’ve had freezing periods in the 1970s. They said it was going to be a new cooling period,” the Florida representative Steve Scalise said in a 2021 interview, referencing long-debunked research that is often still cited by climate deniers. “And now it gets warmer and gets colder, and that’s called Mother Nature. But the idea that hurricanes or wildfires were caused just in the last few years is just fallacy.”

Climate-denying lawmakers have received a combined $52m in lifetime campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry, the report also found.……..