About Trumps withdrawl of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement

How can you have mass catastrophic deaths if humans dissapeer?

 

Your damn roof would fall down if you don't maintain it...

 

Humans dont have to disapear to stop giving nuke plants the attention they need to keep from melting down...

Do you 'prep' at all for social collapse scenarios?

 

Yup. I maintain my roof. I dont maintain my neighbors roof. My neighbors roof wont kill me if it goes unmaintained.

 

So you don't have no heart it appears

 

Why because I drive out there once and awhile and visually check it for my self..what do you think I just sit here on message boards?

 

nice sidestep. id help a neighbor if they ask, but otherwise its none of my business because it doesnt effect me, which is obviously the point. A nuke plant that could go critical due to neglect is my (and everyones) business.

 

Because if you prep for a social collapse scenario, that means you believe such a scenario is possible enough to prepare for. Whats your plan for when the nuclear technicians stop showing up for work in such a scenario? How long til it 'blows'? How far you gotta get from it to be safe?

 

Buffoon ...

 

A whole nation of idiots went critical and voted Donald Dork into the White House.

So far, so bad ...

 

lolk... since I was talking about nuclear energy and you replied... are you for or against it?

 

Frankly, I am for it.

France nuclear energy provides 72.3% of all electricity needs and does so at a very low cost. Moreover, the next largest producer is Slovakia at 52%. There is never been a serious nuclear accident, but the French are building a great many alternative sources (windmills, sea-mills, etc.)

Having said that, the US produces (in kilowatt-hours) the most of any country (805kWh). France generated 384kWh - but those statistics are meaningless unless considered comparatively against number of inhabitants and industrial usage.

The good-news about the US is from here:

But, that simply means that in terms of national energy strategy, the US pie-chart is this:


Meaning that more than two-thirds of energy production is from highly polluting sources. Which we would be rid off by increasing their cost by taxing them.

But, the US does not care to move along that particular cost-curve because air-pollution is not that much of an issue. In fact, it has far lesser "population aggregation" than in Europe. See the comparative pollution earth-map here.

And since apparently there is no comparative danger, I guess most Americans don't see air-pollution as a serious problem ...

 

Do you realize that one serious accident and France will lose a good percentage of it's inhabitable land mass?

 

Coal is only a 'highly polluting' source (in the us) if CO2 is pollution. I remain unconvinced.

 

Air pollution is not a problem countrywide in the US. Nonetheless, Canada (with an expanse as wide as the US) had the good sense to sign the agreement. And Canada's environmental footprint is smaller than that of the US, when compared.

See for yourself (if you dare) here.

Excerpt:

All in all, Canada is a safer place to live in terms of atmospheric pollution ...

 

Yeah, and in one serious misunderstanding with Russia, so will the US!

The danger lies in the probability of a non-belligerent event happening that would produce the effect you mention above. There is a far greater danger of a nuclear-war than a nuclear-accident. France went nuclear in 1962 (more than half a century ago) and has never had a nuclear accident. Never. (Having said that, there is one nuclear-plant that was built on an earthquake fault-line in France.)

That does not mean that France is entirely happy with Nuclear Energy. There is a long-term alternative energy source investment-program in place to reduce its dependence upon nuclear energy. But there is NO DOUBT in anybody's mind that going nuclear in 1962 was a bad idea.

Unlike the US, which (after Three-mile Island) did just the opposite, for which it has higher levels of air-pollution than France! As regards the present danger in France, from here:

You are underlining a significant danger (atomic energy) that is under control, whilst you live in a country (the US) that pollutes the air daily with CO2-effluents produced from hydrocarbon fuels.

Wakey, wakey ... !

 

Drama for a good movie, but the risk is very limited. Hasn't happened yet in America or Europe. And only in Chernobyl in the Ukraine. (Japan was a freak accident brought about by a tsunami, the reactors should never have been built so close to the ocean.)

After fifty years, and you're still waiting? What a great loss of precious time!

What is critical in America - and NOBODY, BUT NOBODY wants to recognized the fact - is the wanton availability of arms; which have killed more people in the US than atomic-energy ever will!

Hey, America! GET YOUR PRIORITIES RIGHT ... !

 

You need to take a very large cup-of-coffee.

Come back when you know how to debate with an iota of reality. You have no sense whatsoever of probabilities, likelihoods and real necessities!

Look at the headlines from Texas this morning! Then consider this: Firearm-related homicide rate per 100,000 population per year, comparative countries (found here):

US: 3.60 (firearm deaths per 100K of population)
Canada: 0.38 (one tenth of the US!)
France, Germany, Italy, UK, and Spain (similar economies and population size): 0.17 (5% of the US!)

How far have you got to go for life to be relatively more safe for your family? The Canadian border ...

 

I'll take C02 over radiation any day. I'm also a firm believer in Murphy's law and it's just a matter of time until France has a nuclear power plant accident. In a country that size it seems an unacceptable risk to me but it's your country so have at it.

 

Wishful thinking?

And by then, of all the coal mined how many American miners will have died of lung-diseases?

C'mon, get a grip on yourself ... !

 

You'll be dead of natural causes before it ever happens ...

 

Hopefully it won't happen but as I said if I was in France I'd consider it too big a risk in such a small country. Apparently France has decided it's worth the gamble. Best of luck to you but I hope you all don't just think you can come to America as radiation refugees if things go bad.

 

We have in France a Minister of the Environment. The person who occupies that post is a well known television presenter - of environmental subjects. He is smart and serious.

And today, he has announce that France, which generates 76% of its electricity by means of nuclear fission, will reduce that amount to 50% by 2025. They are closing down nuclear plants.

Germany, otoh, has stagnated. The price of coal is very inexpensive, so they keep polluting the atmosphere by burning it to produce electricity. Which both they and (with prevailing westerly winds) the Poles breath.

So, now that makes twice in 80 years that Germany has invaded Poland ... !

 

Assad has announced that he will join the Paris Accord...

 

Name one person who died prematurely ?? You can't. No one can. The sheet above contains no facts.