Deal With Climate Change Now, Or America Will Face Unprecedented Southern Immigration

[Yakuda]

Look at the situation. Look at the long range implications over the next few decades.

The weather is getting erratic. The climate is changing. 2016 and 2020 have tied for the hottest years on record.

If this continues unabated, Central America will become unlivable. Crops won't grow. Water for irrigation will become scarce. It will simply be too hot to work outside.

When sustenance farming and even industrial farming is no longer is possible in Central America, take a wild guess where all those people are going to want to go.

South is not an option.

They will all want to come here.

If you think immigration has been a problem up until now, you ain't seen nuthin yet.

The USA needs to take the lead in Climate Change mitigation efforts or we are going to see immigration knocking at our southern border on an unprecedented scale.

Just sayin...



"Bill Gates:

Well, I mean, that the natural ecosystems die off, things like all the coral reefs.

I mean that the beaches disappear. You have you know trees dying off and lots of wildfires. You have the ability to grow food in the Southern grow food in the Southern part of the U.S. is dramatically reduced.

For the world, it will create literally tens of millions of climate refugees, because the closer you are to the equator, the more unlivable that it gets. And so it makes the pandemic look small. The death rate by the end of the century would be over five times the worst of the — what we have had in this pandemic."

"The poorest in the world live near the equator. And they are subsistence farmers. And when they don't see that they are able to feed their family, that creates incredible instability and incredible migration. And so this will be the world's biggest migration ever, as those areas become unlivable, where they have crop failures and they aren't able to work outdoors."

PBS Newhour

Sounds like a threat

[gfm7175]

You're not a scientist.

Actually, I am.

You're not qualified

Yes, I am.

to deny scientific consensus

Consensus is not scientific, nor is consensus science.

on this topic, so it's best if you keep quiet.

No. You don't get to control my speech, China Man.

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,



That vid addresses a different point than that which is raised in the OP. It is a total red herring.

The OP does not talk about trying to "solve the problems of over population and poverty."

It merely states that either we tackle climate change effectively or we will be on the receiving end of climate migration.

Dancing around the issue by talking about solving world poverty is exactly that. Dancing around the issue, not facing it.

It addresses the same issue, just from a different perspective. Be it Gorebal Warming, or poverty, or whatever, immigration and movement of population isn't an answer. The math shows that and the guy with the gumballs demonstrates it quite graphically. Countries don't have to be on "the receiving end of climate migration" either. To date, this hasn't been an issue for mass movement of population in any case even as the so-called "experts" have claimed repeatedly that by today it would be a major problem.

Again, how many times can the "experts" be wrong on something before you stop believing them?

Actually, current nuclear is more expensive because of the regulation hurdles. It has a nasty habit of melting down, causing massive unlivable zones, killing thousands. And there is a tough problem with storage of the spent fuel. And the mining and transpo of the fuel contributes to CO2. Just try to get insurance for a new nuclear project. Good luck.

No, it's not. In fact everything you state about nuclear power is wrong. For example, take Ivanpah solar v. Palo Verde nuclear. The later cost about five times what Ivanpah did in constant 2016 dollars to build. But Palo Verde produces 32 times more energy than Ivanpah, so the cost is far lower both in constructed generation and operation.
There have been three serious accidents with nuclear power: Three Mile Island. Nobody died in that accident. It has been cleaned up entirely now. Fukushima. Nobody died as a direct cause of the meltdowns there. The number of people that might get cancer in years to come as a result is small. It is being cleaned up.

Then there's Chernobyl. This is what happens when you have a Leftist, authoritarian, government that has no public accountability. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated, fast fission reactor design that is used nowhere in the Western world for commercial power generation. The reasons for this is the design is inherently far less safe than designs used elsewhere, it produces as a biproduct of operation weapons grade plutonium, and it is a nightmare to dismantle at end of service life. But it is much cheaper and easier to produce to begin with...

The problems that caused the accident there was the reactor was being operated in an unsafe and experimental manner by a high ranked government bureaucrat. The operators told the guy that it was unsafe but had no authority to overrule him. Because of the inherently bad design characteristics of that type of reactor it resulted in a horrific nuclear accident that cannot and will not happen using standard commercial reactor designs the West uses like BWR and PWR reactors.

Mining of uranium or thorium for fuel, along with the processing and manufacture of it, is far more environmentally friendly than recovery of rare earth metals used in solar panels. Spent fuel can be safely stored in facilities like Yucca mountain. The only thing holding nuclear power back is an irrational fear of it due to scientific and engineering illiteracy such as you show here. That's it.

I would like to see us set up a new regulatory system to look at Traveling Wave Reactor technology. That system uses the spent fuel of old tech reactors, thus solving two problems simultaneously. And it is inherently safer because it can't melt down. I'm not sure if I see a downside there. The new reactors could be built at the sites of old reactors where the spent fuel is stored. Seems like a no-brainer.

There are many inherently safe reactor designs out now. The only thing holding us back is, as I said fear brought on by people with no knowledge of how things nuclear work.

[anonymoose]

I think he is saying it will get worse.

Yes but isn’t that better for an eventual perpetual one party Democrat state ? Then all will be well. A true utopian socialist society. Open borders, free healthcare for all, UBI, oil production eliminated , resulting in a mild year round temperate climate and no more hurricanes? The list of positives is almost endless.

[Jack]

You were against building a wall, if I recall!

I have no problem with a 'Wall' where it's needed. A 'Wall' out in the middle of the Sonoran desert is a waste of money.
(I have a Story of crossing from Tijuana into San Diego I will share with you at some time)

[Jack]

Yes but isn’t that better for an eventual perpetual one party Democrat state ? Then all will be well. A true utopian socialist society. Open borders, free healthcare for all, UBI, oil production eliminated , resulting in a mild year round temperate climate and no more hurricanes? The list of positives is almost endless.

Wow! I hadn't thought of that.

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

It addresses the same issue, just from a different perspective. Be it Gorebal Warming, or poverty, or whatever, immigration and movement of population isn't an answer.

The OP doesn't claim it is. The OP does not propose that migration is the answer to poverty OR global warming.

The essence of the OP is being totally missed in your post.

We face an either / or situation.

Either we do (a) OR we will get (b).

There is no discussion about whether we should allow immigration. That is not the point.

The point is if we don't do something about climate change now, we will face increased immigration in a few decades.

The math shows that and the guy with the gumballs demonstrates it quite graphically. Countries don't have to be on "the receiving end of climate migration" either. To date, this hasn't been an issue for mass movement of population in any case even as the so-called "experts" have claimed repeatedly that by today it would be a major problem.

Again, how many times can the "experts" be wrong on something before you stop believing them?

OK, finally I see your point. You think there is no problem and there will be no problem. And to back this up you submit that experts have been wrong in the past at times so they should never be believed. Very absurd. I presume there are times when you do listen to experts. This just isn't one of them.

You're simply denying that we face this either-or situation in the first place.

I gotcha.

OK, that makes sense that you would take that position.

You don't have to deal with a problem if there is no problem, so you simply deny that the problem exists. Easy peazy. I only wish that was an effective solution.

Well, you are entitled to any position you like, but climate change is not dependent upon whether or not you believe in it. The climate is going to just keep on changing unless we change.

And we can change. We are constantly changing. We haven't been very good at forcing change because we face a global catastrophe, but we are going to have to learn how to do it. That would be a big enough challenge if we had everybody working towards the solution, It becomes even bigger if we have to work around a bunch of deniers who simply refuse to coordinate with the rest of the planet. No matter. We will continue to work towards a solution whether you help or not. We'd really like to have your help with this but if we can't have it we will have to do what we can without you. We really don't have another choice. If we did we would be glad to not face this looming crisis, but we have to accept the reality of it. There is no planet B.

No, it's not. In fact everything you state about nuclear power is wrong. For example, take Ivanpah solar v. Palo Verde nuclear. The later cost about five times what Ivanpah did in constant 2016 dollars to build. But Palo Verde produces 32 times more energy than Ivanpah, so the cost is far lower both in constructed generation and operation.
There have been three serious accidents with nuclear power: Three Mile Island. Nobody died in that accident. It has been cleaned up entirely now. Fukushima. Nobody died as a direct cause of the meltdowns there. The number of people that might get cancer in years to come as a result is small. It is being cleaned up.

Then there's Chernobyl. This is what happens when you have a Leftist, authoritarian, government that has no public accountability. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated, fast fission reactor design that is used nowhere in the Western world for commercial power generation. The reasons for this is the design is inherently far less safe than designs used elsewhere, it produces as a biproduct of operation weapons grade plutonium, and it is a nightmare to dismantle at end of service life. But it is much cheaper and easier to produce to begin with...

The problems that caused the accident there was the reactor was being operated in an unsafe and experimental manner by a high ranked government bureaucrat. The operators told the guy that it was unsafe but had no authority to overrule him. Because of the inherently bad design characteristics of that type of reactor it resulted in a horrific nuclear accident that cannot and will not happen using standard commercial reactor designs the West uses like BWR and PWR reactors.

Mining of uranium or thorium for fuel, along with the processing and manufacture of it, is far more environmentally friendly than recovery of rare earth metals used in solar panels. Spent fuel can be safely stored in facilities like Yucca mountain.

Cherry-picked examples of each type of power specifically chosen to support a narrative. Palo Verde first came online in 1986. No matter what the cost back then was, the cost to build a similar plant today would be more than the inflation-adjusted cost back then. Regulation has become more expensive. Ivanpah, which is not PV, and uses mirrors to heat boilers for steam, was a step in the right direction, but that design is no longer cost-effective. All plans to build anything new like it have been scrapped due to the reduction in the cost of PV panels. But nice job of using what you had to make your point. Select one of the most cost-effective nuke plants and compare it to an outdated not-cost-efective solar plant. Such trickery makes a nice post, but it doesn't make a good basis for policy. Also, thanks for the challenge to learn. I was not previously familiar with either plant. Didn't take me long to bone up and find out why your argument was flawed.

The only thing holding nuclear power back is an irrational fear of it due to scientific and engineering illiteracy such as you show here. That's it.

Pathetic ad hominem attack noted. You've tried a red herring, didn't work, now you're on to an ad hominem. No big surprise. If you don't have a good enough argument for it to stand on it's own merit it becomes appealing to try such distractions to try to throw the reader off. It's not appreciated. But what else can you do? You have a losing argument in the first place. A losing argument is a losing argument no matter how it is presented.

There are many inherently safe reactor designs out now. The only thing holding us back is, as I said fear brought on by people with no knowledge of how things nuclear work.

If only it were that simple.

[American Man]

Actually, I am.


Yes, I am.


Consensus is not scientific, nor is consensus science.


No. You don't get to control my speech, China Man.

You're a trained scientist?

[PoliTalker]

One of the problems causing low efficiency with the Ivanpah style of solar power generation comes from the start-up each morning.

This design uses mirrors to focus and concentrate the energy of the sun onto boilers which produce steam, which is used to run turbines to generate electricity. That's all fine and well after it's up and running, but each night the boilers cool. Every morning, in order to get the plant up and running quicker, natural gas is used to get the boilers up to temperature in order to be ready to switch over to the energy of the sun, thus maximizing the number of hours of solar power generation per day.

I wonder if they considered insulation.

Perhaps the efficiency of the plant could be improved if movable insulation surrounding the boilers could be shifted into place at the end of each day while the boilers are still hot. This would act to prevent heat loss during the night. Then, each morning, the insulation would be removed when there is enough sunlight to resume warming.

Probably not practical, and it seems such a straightforward idea that they must have considered it and run analysis.

Hopefully!

[PostmodernProphet]

Hello Jack,



THE (rather obvious) pragmatic solution is to get control of Climate Change.

you do realize climate change is cyclical, right?......its been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years, right on schedule......why pretend you can control it.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Americans came from all over the place, and have relatives there. It's sad to see the trumpers wanting their families to die.

if we built a wall around Wales and filled it with water, would it keep the rest of the third world from flooding?.....

[gfm7175]

You're a trained scientist?

Yes.

[Truth Detector]

Legalize everyone that is here NOW. Give them an SS number.
Put out the 'No Vacancy' sign, and have a Policy of 'No immigration'.
(I would imagine exceptions could be made)

So legalize over 20 million ILLEGALS, tell the people waiting in line tough shit and destroy our economy? That's a moronic solution snowflake.

[Truth Detector]

Have you tried driving on an L.A. Freeway? Lived in NYC? How many MORE people do you want to crowd in here? Do you think living shoulder-to-shoulder should be the norm?

Overpopulation; aother moronic leftist meme lacking in facts and common sense.

29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 2 to 3% of that area. Of the remaining land mass, about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas.

The notion that man is causing the planet to heat up based on CO2 that amounts to 0.0314% of the gas in oxygen can only be believed by morons.

[Truth Detector]

Heres a suggestion - why not get a 16 year old child with Aspergers, protected from any challenging questions, this way the selected spokes-child can cite bullying or hate speech law against anyone who asks a probing question. Slam Dunk - the climate change cult can forge ahead.