Rep. Neguse Thinks We’re ‘At An Inflection Point’ On Climate Change 1

Rep. Neguse Thinks We’re ‘At An Inflection Point’ On Climate Change

 

Congressman Joe Neguse (D-CO) calls for action on climate change after unprecedented wildfires in his congressional district
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter: …
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

#MSNBC #Climate #Neguse

54 comments

  1. our climate crisis is a product of our distorted relationship with nature. the attitude that says we can exploit nature for profit is the same attitude that leads us to exploit and harm each other for profit. the climate crisis is deeply interlinked to our social crisis

    1. @Daniel M Connolly Artificially increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a form of unintentional geo-engineering which leads to rapidly rising temperatures. In this regard I agree with you.
      However Occam’s Razor says that the less complicated explanation is the correct explanation. And the explanation that some shady forces conspire against humanity with secret geo-engineering and weather control weapons is by far more complicated than greenhouse gases produced as waste by the industry.

    2. @Government is Violence: HAARP has a power of 3.6 megawatts. 3.6 megawatts is the typical power of an on-shore wind turbine. Now please explain to us how the US government is able to control the global weather with the power of a single wind turbine?

    3. @Piotr Trebisz government has no real authority ya clown…do you also believe in the easter bunny and santa clause too?

    4. @Piotr Trebisz uhm….they have haarp machines all around the world and i guess you have never heard of weather modification which has been a thing for awhile now but go ahead and believe your loving government that wasnt to depopulate and destroy and gain power over you because you are to stupid to think for yourself

  2. We’ve been experiencing the effects of climate change for a few years now in California. Nobody said much about our ever increasing temps, monster fires and increased drought being the results of climate change until things started flooding in other areas of the country. We’ve been experiencing it for a good five years already.

    1. @Imagem Your rationale is succinct and simple. You need to publish your explanation. More people would “buy into” the campaign for environmental conservation.

    2. @CJ 2021 That very interesting information (warming and cooling phases, glacial periods, etc.) you’re citing is brought to us by… guess who… CLIMATE scientists! Most climate scientist are now telling us that they consistently have been finding clear signs that the changes they’ve been measuring are not accounted for by natural cycles, and that there appears to be a link between an extraordinary release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with record time changes in climate. So how come you trust these very scientists when they explain to you how the planet’s climate has worked for thousands, even millions of years, but don’t trust them when they explain anthropogenic climate change?

    3. if you look at the historical wildfire data, you will see that in the 1930’s and for an entire decade there was 10 times as many acres burned. this woman is lying

  3. The environment’s got us surrounded – and we’re burning down the house! Who knew we would be the zombie apocalypse we’ve been waiting for.

    1. @Oculus Nomad’s Lost Tribe By the way, cars with ammonia fuel exist, this is not just theory. There are enthusiasts who have converted their trucks to ammonia and Toyota has made one 10 years ago.

    2. Actually, the Geo-Engineers have us surrounded. They are the ones who are creating all of this destruction. God is not amused. They will pay.

    3. @Piotr Trebisz very interesting information – well said and well written. I appreciate the references as the specifics enable me to do more research. If you have an organization that will sponsor you, consider a White Paper as you seem to have all the necessary aspects included in your info.

    4. @CJ 2021 I have to admit that I have copy & pasted it into multiple threads. I counter ignorant climate change denial spam with fact based spam which even makes fossil fuel fanatics think about the role of this industry.

  4. The world isn’t heating up evenly, there are hot spots
    One of those hot spots is the Gulf of Mexico. Warm water is steroids to a hurricane

    1. Warm water because gulf stream lost 30%. because far less ice floe in artic sea, stopping the gulf stream pump. The best is to come. today’s climate is emission 20 years ago.
      CO2 stays thousands years in biosphere. No way to escape. The only thing we can do is saving climate for future generation. It’s a mindset problem, people don’t care, they want a car . They talk about prices but never of CO2 footprint, they want asian stuff, and they even want a fridge producing ice cube all day long …for nothing and they even want people delivering meals in their home, they are so lazy. They don’t even calculate they own CO2 footprint, so they talk without knowing anything. that’s the best way ! OTHERS are the problem, so easy. I’m sure a host on TV with a jacket in summertime don’t realize he sends the message that you HAVE to air condition everything. electric consumption based on coal for a good part. Complaining about climate change in a jacket in summertime should raise questions…it doesn’t. Brand new jacket by the way. Breaking news : We are in 21st century now, stop acting 20th century !

    2. I gonna tell you something that is unfortunatelly not covered in the media when it comes to climate change. And believe me, it’s worth to read this entire comment to the end, even if it takes a few minutes. Internal documents of fossil fuel companies prove that they were already concerned in the 1950s about possible consequences of CO2 emissions for the Earth’s climate. Furthermore internal documents of fossil fuel companies from the 1970s prove that at this time these concerns have already become a certainty for them. That means that already in the 1970s the fossil fuel industry KNEW that CO2 emissions will cause a dramatic climate change. And now let’s take a look on what could have been done against it in the 1950s until the 1980s:

      The Smith-Putnam wind turbine from 1941 was the first wind turbine with a power of 1.25 megawatt. Typical modern on-shore wind turbines in Germany have a power of 2 to 5 megawatts. As you can see it was possible to build really good wind turbines already in 1941. If development of wind turbines continued after 1941 then wind turbines as good as our modern on-shore wind turbines could have been available already in the 1960s or 1970s. Wind power back then could have been combined with technologies which I will describe in the following sections.

      The “Kværner process” is a technology originally developed in Norway in the 1980s to split hydrocarbons like gas & oil into clean CO2-free hydrogen and solid carbon which can be safely buried again as a waste product. It is a method which uses electricity and it takes 75 kilojoules of electric energy to convert 1 mole of methane into an amount of hydrogen with an energy content of 570 kilojoules. Currently it is in fact the most energy efficient way to produce hydrogen, 7.6 times more energy efficient than electrolysis of water and even more energy efficient than steam-reforming which today is the state-of-the-art method used in the industry. The start-up “Monolith Materials” and their partner Mitsubishi opened a commercial clean hydrogen plant this year in Nebraska which uses the “Kværner process” and they plan to open 30 more plants in the coming years. Hydrogen can be used as a clean CO2-free fuel for cars, trains, ships & airplanes, it is used in the production of ammonia for fertilizers, in Germany and Sweden it is already used to make steel without CO2 emissions and it can be used for heating.

      Another method called “Methane Pyrolysis” is known even earlier since the 1960s. “Methane Pyrolysis” does the same as the “Kværner process” but uses heat instead of electricity and has a similar energy efficiency. Although it contains “Methane” in its name it is as well perfectly suitable to process higher hydrocarbons like oil. In 2020 the german chemical company BASF has announced that they have developed “Methane Pyrolysis” to the point where it can be commercialized. In the future natural gas from Russia will be processed to clean CO2-free hydrogen which will be used in the german industry to produce CO2-free steel and for the heating of homes.

      The “Lockheed CL-400 Suntan” was a reconnaissance aircraft developed in the 1950s with liquid hydrogen propulsion. In the end the CIA opted against it because the “SR-71 Blackbird” with its conventional kerosine fuel was cheaper. But the airframe, the tanks & the engines of “Suntan” were fully developed and successfully tested. This was in the 1950s which means that with government support liquid hydrogen powered passenger jets for commercial airlines could have been available already in the 1970s or 1980s. At this time the liquid hydrogen fuel could have been produced in sufficient quantities from oil & gas with “Methane Pyrolysis” and the “Kværner process” which were already known at this time and which I have described further above. Instead we still fly on Kerosine and civil aviation has become a major source of emissions.

      Hydrogen powered cars would have been impractical in the 1960s because hydrogen needs either cryogenic tanks if it is liquid or very high pressure tanks at room temperature. Hydrogen fuel cells were already in use in the 1960s in space ships like Apollo, but at this time they were way to expensive for cars. So how would it be possible to power cars with clean hydrogen in the 1960s? The answer is ammonia. If one combines “Methane Pyrolysis” for hydrogen production with the “Haber-Bosch process” for ammonia production then it takes in the ideal case 14.08 kilojoules to convert 1 mole of methane (or another hydrocarbon) into an amount of ammonia with an energy content of 422.4 kilojoules. This is a ratio of 30!!! If one assumes that the efficiency is not 100% but only a very bad 33% then the ratio is still 10!!! It means that even at a very low efficiency of 33% one can make 10 kilojoules of ammonia power from 1 kilojoules of renewable power from fossil fuels without any CO2 emissions. Ammonia is much easier to handle than hydrogen because it can be kept liquid at room temperature at very modest pressures below 20 bars. Even in the 1960s this was a very low and safe pressure for gas tanks. In addition liquid ammonia contains 1.8 times more energy per volume than liquid hydrogen. Ammonia is a good fuel for internal combustion engines and it combusts to water and nitrogen. Since “Methane Pyrolysis” is known since the 1960s it would have been possible to make clean cars in the 1970s.

      Now these two technologies target hydrocarbons. However there also exists a technology called “Direct Carbon Fuel Cell”. A direct carbon fuel cell is a fuel cell which uses coal instead of hydrogen. The first patent for such a fuel cell was granted in 1896 to William W. Jacques, US Patent 555,511. Now a direct carbon fuel cell does produce CO2 because it oxidizes coal, however its efficiency is twice the efficiency of a conventional combustion based generator. This means that one can use only half as much coal for the same amount of power as in conventional coal power plants. Furthermore a direct carbon fuel cell produces a concentrated stream of 100% pure CO2 as exhaust. One can therefore capture the exhaust directly without any complicated & energy intensive additional steps. This CO2 can then be either pumped into empty oil & gas fields, so that it is not released to the atmosphere, or it can be used as an ingredient for carbon-negative concrete like “Carbicrete” from Canada or “CarbonCure” from the United States.

      So what does all this means? Not only did the fossil fuel industry know about the disastrous consequences of their CO2 emissions, they also already had the technologies to fix this problem decades ago. The fossil fuel industry has spent billions and billions over the decades to influence politicians so that effective measures against climate change were not put into practice. They could have used the money for R&D instead so that the “Kværner process”, “Methane Pyrolysis” and “Direct Carbon Fuel Cells” could have been used already decades ago. This way they could have been able to continue their business, making money AND contribute to climate protection.

    1. OMG the West is burning up with fire and drought, the East coast has record flooding, the Gulf Coast is devastated by Hurricane Ida, hundreds of thousands still a month away from power and water. How much more in our backyard does it need to get? Seems like it’s gotten through the yard already and is now at our doorstep.

    1. I gonna tell you something that is unfortunatelly not covered in the media when it comes to climate change. And believe me, it’s worth to read this entire comment to the end, even if it takes a few minutes. Internal documents of fossil fuel companies prove that they were already concerned in the 1950s about possible consequences of CO2 emissions for the Earth’s climate. Furthermore internal documents of fossil fuel companies from the 1970s prove that at this time these concerns have already become a certainty for them. That means that already in the 1970s the fossil fuel industry KNEW that CO2 emissions will cause a dramatic climate change. And now let’s take a look on what could have been done against it in the 1950s until the 1980s:

      The Smith-Putnam wind turbine from 1941 was the first wind turbine with a power of 1.25 megawatt. Typical modern on-shore wind turbines in Germany have a power of 2 to 5 megawatts. As you can see it was possible to build really good wind turbines already in 1941. If development of wind turbines continued after 1941 then wind turbines as good as our modern on-shore wind turbines could have been available already in the 1960s or 1970s. Wind power back then could have been combined with technologies which I will describe in the following sections.

      The “Kværner process” is a technology originally developed in Norway in the 1980s to split hydrocarbons like gas & oil into clean CO2-free hydrogen and solid carbon which can be safely buried again as a waste product. It is a method which uses electricity and it takes 75 kilojoules of electric energy to convert 1 mole of methane into an amount of hydrogen with an energy content of 570 kilojoules. Currently it is in fact the most energy efficient way to produce hydrogen, 7.6 times more energy efficient than electrolysis of water and even more energy efficient than steam-reforming which today is the state-of-the-art method used in the industry. The start-up “Monolith Materials” and their partner Mitsubishi opened a commercial clean hydrogen plant this year in Nebraska which uses the “Kværner process” and they plan to open 30 more plants in the coming years. Hydrogen can be used as a clean CO2-free fuel for cars, trains, ships & airplanes, it is used in the production of ammonia for fertilizers, in Germany and Sweden it is already used to make steel without CO2 emissions and it can be used for heating.

      Another method called “Methane Pyrolysis” is known even earlier since the 1960s. “Methane Pyrolysis” does the same as the “Kværner process” but uses heat instead of electricity and has a similar energy efficiency. Although it contains “Methane” in its name it is as well perfectly suitable to process higher hydrocarbons like oil. In 2020 the german chemical company BASF has announced that they have developed “Methane Pyrolysis” to the point where it can be commercialized. In the future natural gas from Russia will be processed to clean CO2-free hydrogen which will be used in the german industry to produce CO2-free steel and for the heating of homes.

      The “Lockheed CL-400 Suntan” was a reconnaissance aircraft developed in the 1950s with liquid hydrogen propulsion. In the end the CIA opted against it because the “SR-71 Blackbird” with its conventional kerosine fuel was cheaper. But the airframe, the tanks & the engines of “Suntan” were fully developed and successfully tested. This was in the 1950s which means that with government support liquid hydrogen powered passenger jets for commercial airlines could have been available already in the 1970s or 1980s. At this time the liquid hydrogen fuel could have been produced in sufficient quantities from oil & gas with “Methane Pyrolysis” and the “Kværner process” which were already known at this time and which I have described further above. Instead we still fly on Kerosine and civil aviation has become a major source of emissions.

      Hydrogen powered cars would have been impractical in the 1960s because hydrogen needs either cryogenic tanks if it is liquid or very high pressure tanks at room temperature. Hydrogen fuel cells were already in use in the 1960s in space ships like Apollo, but at this time they were way to expensive for cars. So how would it be possible to power cars with clean hydrogen in the 1960s? The answer is ammonia. If one combines “Methane Pyrolysis” for hydrogen production with the “Haber-Bosch process” for ammonia production then it takes in the ideal case 14.08 kilojoules to convert 1 mole of methane (or another hydrocarbon) into an amount of ammonia with an energy content of 422.4 kilojoules. This is a ratio of 30!!! If one assumes that the efficiency is not 100% but only a very bad 33% then the ratio is still 10!!! It means that even at a very low efficiency of 33% one can make 10 kilojoules of ammonia power from 1 kilojoules of renewable power from fossil fuels without any CO2 emissions. Ammonia is much easier to handle than hydrogen because it can be kept liquid at room temperature at very modest pressures below 20 bars. Even in the 1960s this was a very low and safe pressure for gas tanks. In addition ammonia contains 1.8 times more energy per volume than liquid hydrogen. Ammonia is a good fuel for internal combustion engines and it combusts to water and nitrogen. Since “Methane Pyrolysis” is known since the 1960s it would have been possible to make clean cars in the 1970s.

      Now these two technologies target hydrocarbons. However there also exists a technology called “Direct Carbon Fuel Cell”. A direct carbon fuel cell is a fuel cell which uses coal instead of hydrogen. The first patent for such a fuel cell was granted in 1896 to William W. Jacques, US Patent 555,511. Now a direct carbon fuel cell does produce CO2 because it oxidizes coal, however its efficiency is twice the efficiency of a conventional combustion based generator. This means that one can use only half as much coal for the same amount of power as in conventional coal power plants. Furthermore a direct carbon fuel cell produces a concentrated stream of 100% pure CO2 as exhaust. One can therefore capture the exhaust directly without any complicated & energy intensive additional steps. This CO2 can then be either pumped into empty oil & gas fields, so that it is not released to the atmosphere, or it can be used as an ingredient for carbon-negative concrete like “Carbicrete” from Canada or “CarbonCure” from the United States.

      So what does all this means? Not only did the fossil fuel industry know about the disastrous consequences of their CO2 emissions, they also already had the technologies to fix this problem decades ago. The fossil fuel industry has spent billions and billions over the decades to influence politicians so that effective measures against climate change were not put into practice. They could have used the money for R&D instead so that the “Kværner process”, “Methane Pyrolysis” and “Direct Carbon Fuel Cells” could have been used already decades ago. This way they could have been able to continue their business, making money AND contribute to climate protection.

    2. The death of the Republican Party will be a necessary prerequisite for any one to take real action to solve this issue. The Republican Party’s death is the real tippy top priority. Be happy, its happening all by itself. .

  5. It’s already far too late. We failed to reverse this long ago….. now we will pay the price of greed and ignorance…..

    1. @HunterBidensCrackPipe Then is it a hoax like you’re former president said? Is Covid a hoax too? What about abortion and women’s rights? Is general common sense a hoax as well? Enlighten me fool.

    2. I gonna tell you something that is unfortunatelly not covered in the media when it comes to climate change. And believe me, it’s worth to read this entire comment to the end, even if it takes a few minutes. Internal documents of fossil fuel companies prove that they were already concerned in the 1950s about possible consequences of CO2 emissions for the Earth’s climate. Furthermore internal documents of fossil fuel companies from the 1970s prove that at this time these concerns have already become a certainty for them. That means that already in the 1970s the fossil fuel industry KNEW that CO2 emissions will cause a dramatic climate change. And now let’s take a look on what could have been done against it in the 1950s until the 1980s:

      The Smith-Putnam wind turbine from 1941 was the first wind turbine with a power of 1.25 megawatt. Typical modern on-shore wind turbines in Germany have a power of 2 to 5 megawatts. As you can see it was possible to build really good wind turbines already in 1941. If development of wind turbines continued after 1941 then wind turbines as good as our modern on-shore wind turbines could have been available already in the 1960s or 1970s. Wind power back then could have been combined with technologies which I will describe in the following sections.

      The “Kværner process” is a technology originally developed in Norway in the 1980s to split hydrocarbons like gas & oil into clean CO2-free hydrogen and solid carbon which can be safely buried again as a waste product. It is a method which uses electricity and it takes 75 kilojoules of electric energy to convert 1 mole of methane into an amount of hydrogen with an energy content of 570 kilojoules. Currently it is in fact the most energy efficient way to produce hydrogen, 7.6 times more energy efficient than electrolysis of water and even more energy efficient than steam-reforming which today is the state-of-the-art method used in the industry. The start-up “Monolith Materials” and their partner Mitsubishi opened a commercial clean hydrogen plant this year in Nebraska which uses the “Kværner process” and they plan to open 30 more plants in the coming years. Hydrogen can be used as a clean CO2-free fuel for cars, trains, ships & airplanes, it is used in the production of ammonia for fertilizers, in Germany and Sweden it is already used to make steel without CO2 emissions and it can be used for heating.

      Another method called “Methane Pyrolysis” is known even earlier since the 1960s. “Methane Pyrolysis” does the same as the “Kværner process” but uses heat instead of electricity and has a similar energy efficiency. Although it contains “Methane” in its name it is as well perfectly suitable to process higher hydrocarbons like oil. In 2020 the german chemical company BASF has announced that they have developed “Methane Pyrolysis” to the point where it can be commercialized. In the future natural gas from Russia will be processed to clean CO2-free hydrogen which will be used in the german industry to produce CO2-free steel and for the heating of homes.

      The “Lockheed CL-400 Suntan” was a reconnaissance aircraft developed in the 1950s with liquid hydrogen propulsion. In the end the CIA opted against it because the “SR-71 Blackbird” with its conventional kerosine fuel was cheaper. But the airframe, the tanks & the engines of “Suntan” were fully developed and successfully tested. This was in the 1950s which means that with government support liquid hydrogen powered passenger jets for commercial airlines could have been available already in the 1970s or 1980s. At this time the liquid hydrogen fuel could have been produced in sufficient quantities from oil & gas with “Methane Pyrolysis” and the “Kværner process” which were already known at this time and which I have described further above. Instead we still fly on Kerosine and civil aviation has become a major source of emissions.

      Hydrogen powered cars would have been impractical in the 1960s because hydrogen needs either cryogenic tanks if it is liquid or very high pressure tanks at room temperature. Hydrogen fuel cells were already in use in the 1960s in space ships like Apollo, but at this time they were way to expensive for cars. So how would it be possible to power cars with clean hydrogen in the 1960s? The answer is ammonia. If one combines “Methane Pyrolysis” for hydrogen production with the “Haber-Bosch process” for ammonia production then it takes in the ideal case 14.08 kilojoules to convert 1 mole of methane (or another hydrocarbon) into an amount of ammonia with an energy content of 422.4 kilojoules. This is a ratio of 30!!! If one assumes that the efficiency is not 100% but only a very bad 33% then the ratio is still 10!!! It means that even at a very low efficiency of 33% one can make 10 kilojoules of ammonia power from 1 kilojoules of renewable power from fossil fuels without any CO2 emissions. Ammonia is much easier to handle than hydrogen because it can be kept liquid at room temperature at very modest pressures below 20 bars. Even in the 1960s this was a very low and safe pressure for gas tanks. In addition ammonia contains 1.8 times more energy per volume than liquid hydrogen. Ammonia is a good fuel for internal combustion engines and it combusts to water and nitrogen. Since “Methane Pyrolysis” is known since the 1960s it would have been possible to make clean cars in the 1970s.

      Now these two technologies target hydrocarbons. However there also exists a technology called “Direct Carbon Fuel Cell”. A direct carbon fuel cell is a fuel cell which uses coal instead of hydrogen. The first patent for such a fuel cell was granted in 1896 to William W. Jacques, US Patent 555,511. Now a direct carbon fuel cell does produce CO2 because it oxidizes coal, however its efficiency is twice the efficiency of a conventional combustion based generator. This means that one can use only half as much coal for the same amount of power as in conventional coal power plants. Furthermore a direct carbon fuel cell produces a concentrated stream of 100% pure CO2 as exhaust. One can therefore capture the exhaust directly without any complicated & energy intensive additional steps. This CO2 can then be either pumped into empty oil & gas fields, so that it is not released to the atmosphere, or it can be used as an ingredient for carbon-negative concrete like “Carbicrete” from Canada or “CarbonCure” from the United States.

      So what does all this means? Not only did the fossil fuel industry know about the disastrous consequences of their CO2 emissions, they also already had the technologies to fix this problem decades ago. The fossil fuel industry has spent billions and billions over the decades to influence politicians so that effective measures against climate change were not put into practice. They could have used the money for R&D instead so that the “Kværner process”, “Methane Pyrolysis” and “Direct Carbon Fuel Cells” could have been used already decades ago. This way they could have been able to continue their business, making money AND contribute to climate protection.

    3. @Flamin Whitty Trump will always be our president and 2024 will be soon. Covid has been way overblown, abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness and climate change is a problem but it’s not doomsday. Stop living in fear like most lefties

  6. “Self interest is for the past; common interest is for the future.” D. Attenborough
    Lu’sè Changcheng (Great green wall) can be seen from space.
    A fire from a US gender reveal party was seen from space.
    Start using goats to clear forest brush and start dobbing in Fire Karens.

  7. World: Floods in Germany, China, Britain, New Zealand and America caused by Global Warming.
    US: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” D.Trump
    Native: “Your kids can name more KPop groups than they can types of native trees.” Sean Sherman
    China: “Ecology is a resource, wealth and treasure.” Xi Jinping

    1. @Tee Dogg I’m not in either one of those stupid parties.
      I’m some of everything.
      But U may wanna ask which party and quit assuming like the Confederates do.
      It’s the one that’ follows every word trump says.
      The programmed. People that let political actors talk for them.

    2. @Michael Brown Lol not one of those stupid parties, but obviously biased.

      The confederates had nothing to do with the orange man. That’s just stupid.

      We are commenting on a propaganda channel for leftists, so I hardly think calling orange man supporters programmed works.

    3. @Tee Dogg Tee can not tell time, stuck in the deep past while today confederates march right past him, all dressed in Orange, some in jump suits.

  8. Thank you for talking about something real instead of “drama politics” I’m so done with 2020 “stuff” And I love the climate corp idea. Young people need something to do besides college or the military. Thanks!

  9. Republicans: “Got this fantastic idea: let’s cook the planet to make the wealthy even richer! What could possibly go wrong?”

    1. Hmmm….not a logical statement. Better look at Dems and Republicans. I.e. Take Ca as one huge example of climate destruction while spewing a lot of rhetoric which they do not implement.

  10. Talking against a wall. Here is a certainty: humans will not be proactive in this. Humans will only react AFTER the disasters have taken place. And most of the time, they react inappropriately.

  11. Stop saying “new normal”, stop saying “change”. It’s an ongoing disaster. Barilla (large pasta producer) are warning that wheat production is failing – when the food runs short, what will the politicians do? Fiddle?

  12. “I need not tell you the perception around the world and in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things are not going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban,” Biden said. “And there is a need, whether it is true or not, there is a need to project a different picture.”

  13. When the solution for climate change doesn’t read like a socialist manifesto, then we can talk. Until that time, I ain’t buying it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.