The great thing about the corona virus

[gordo]

The virus has demonstrated that some 8 billion people can within a week completely change their lifestyle to combat an eminent global threat.
Imagine if the same response was directed at another eminent global threat - climate change. We can already see the side effects of the corona response to the environment - clear skies over Chinese cities, fish and dolphins returning to the now clear Venice canals, etc.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

The virus has demonstrated that some 8 billion people can within a week completely change their lifestyle to combat an eminent global threat.
Imagine if the same response was directed at another eminent global threat - climate change. We can already see the side effects of the corona response to the environment - clear skies over Chinese cities, fish and dolphins returning to the now clear Venice canals, etc.

Just shows that people respond to what they see as real problems and don't respond to what, in their hearts, they don't see as real problems. People unconsciously calculate the cost/benefit ratio and how it will affects them and even their children.

 

[gordo]

Just shows that people respond to what they see as real problems and don't respond to what, in their hearts, they don't see as real problems. People unconsciously calculate the cost/benefit ratio and how it will affects them and even their children.

Not sure that's the reason. I think it's just human nature of most people to think in short term increments. If an event is not an immediate threat then it can be ignored. It's why, for example, people build houses on earthquake fault lines and flood plains. Earthquakes, floods, climate change, etc., are not immediate threats so they don't register as a problem. Corona is an immediate threat so there is a response.
Frog in the pot syndrome.

 

[smalloffsetpressexperts]

Maybe that is why after years of preaching global warming is a danger, Obama bought a $6 million house on Martha's Vineyard?

 

[gordo]

Maybe that is why after years of preaching global warming is a danger, Obama bought a $6 million house on Martha's Vineyard?

No. More like, for one example, a politician promoting coal as an energy source by using the marketing term “ beautiful clean coal” to benefit himself immediately by swaying public opinion in order to gain votes while ignoring the long range negative impact of the use of that fossil fuel.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

As I see it, eventually there will be a need to obtain energy from non fossil fuel sources. Not because of CO2 but due to the lack in the future of available cheap fossil fuels. I think the window is only about 100 years.

CO2 is considered an issue but CO2 is generated naturally all the time. It is a cycle. It is generated by nature and absorbed by nature. Of the total CO2 generated, man made CO2 is only about 4% of the total.

So IMO, no matter what is true about climate, there is a very important need to develop sources that will provide cheap energy. I suspect it will be nuclear of some sort. That needs to be researched. Money should not be wasted on renewable non-solutions that are proposed now.

If energy can be made cheap enough, the public will go for it.

 

[Slammer]

The problem is simple, we can have very cheap and abundant energy but finate and dirty, or clean and environmentally safe but very expensive.
There is no third option with existing technology and there won´t be any magic cure, maybe a tweak here and a tweak there but there is, for instance, only so much energy you can pack in a chemical reaction like in a battery. Which ever way you look at it fossils as an energy source are on the way out, we won´t actually run out of them, but the cost and energy required to produce it will very soon be equal to the net energy output, after that a fossils are no longer a viable energy source but an energy sink. Then we will need renewables, but we need to develop the tech now and not when it is too late.

 

[Mark]

Politicians using fiction to control people, like using an eclipse to scare the peasants.

 

[smalloffsetpressexperts]

Gordo let me ask you a question. Your entire family and loved ones are on a bus, the bus crashes all people require a hospital. The hospitals power is down 70% due to no wind and cloudy days. the battery's are drained.
There is a pile of coal or other fossil fuel that would restore all power. Your choice is wait for a windy, sunny day to supply power and hope the loved ones do not perish. Or use the fossil fuel and save them all, how would you decide?

 

[smalloffsetpressexperts]

No. More like, for one example, a politician promoting coal as an energy source by using the marketing term “ beautiful clean coal” to benefit himself immediately by swaying public opinion in order to gain votes while ignoring the long range negative impact of the use of that fossil fuel.

Is that what your government officials do, besides smoking weed?

 

[gordo]

Gordo let me ask you a question. Your entire family and loved ones are on a bus, the bus crashes all people require a hospital. The hospitals power is down 70% due to no wind and cloudy days. the battery's are drained.
There is a pile of coal or other fossil fuel that would restore all power. Your choice is wait for a windy, sunny day to supply power and hope the loved ones do not perish. Or use the fossil fuel and save them all, how would you decide?

Seriously?
Fossil fuels are going to be with us for generations to come. This issue is not of usage per se - it's one of scale of usage. By analogy, you can choose to eat a couple of candies a day but if you choose candies as your main nutritional source of calories then you are going to develop health issues.
There are many choices everyone of us makes each day, from what we eat to our mode of transportation that cumulatively can negatively impact the environment minimally or in a significant way. The impact of virus just demonstrates that people have the opportunity and can change the living choices they make when they become aware of the personal health impact of their choices.

RE: Your second post -

In Canada, 9% of electricity is generated with coal.
In the U.S., 27% of electricity is generated with coal.
In 2018, the Government of Canada announced final regulations to phase-out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030. So, rather than encouraging its usage we're actively discouraging it. Even the US was able to change how it burned coal in order to moderate its negative impact - for example with the clean air act of 1990 ( Acid Rain )

 

[achatwin]

The virus has demonstrated that some 8 billion people can within a week completely change their lifestyle to combat an eminent global threat.
Imagine if the same response was directed at another eminent global threat - climate change. We can already see the side effects of the corona response to the environment - clear skies over Chinese cities, fish and dolphins returning to the now clear Venice canals, etc.

I read a National Geographic article that the fish and dolphins returning to Venice are false. The article basically asked why people would want to circulate such falsehoods.

 

[Puch]

People changed their lifestyle because they were ordered to do so. It wasn't their choice. They are threatened by the government (like in France and Belgium, where they have to pay a hefty penalty if one dares to go out), they're suffocated by the massive layoffs. Gordo, did you read the news that 6 million asked for unemployment welfare in the US? Yes, it is a kind of 'change of lifestyle' if you like to say it that way. Most other people owning or working in a small business are on a very thin ice - we can only manage 2-3 months with the current trickle of jobs. If the Christmas season will be postponed (stating that the 'virus' is still at large), then we have to close up shop.

 

[gordo]

I read a National Geographic article that the fish and dolphins returning to Venice are false. The article basically asked why people would want to circulate such falsehoods.

You are right. I was infected by a viral tweet.

 

[gordo]

People changed their lifestyle because they were ordered to do so. It wasn't their choice. They are threatened by the government (like in France and Belgium, where they have to pay a hefty penalty if one dares to go out), they're suffocated by the massive layoffs. Gordo, did you read the news that 6 million asked for unemployment welfare in the US? Yes, it is a kind of 'change of lifestyle' if you like to say it that way. Most other people owning or working in a small business are on a very thin ice - we can only manage 2-3 months with the current trickle of jobs. If the Christmas season will be postponed (stating that the 'virus' is still at large), then we have to close up shop.

My point was only to say that people can change their lifestyle and that the change can be for the better. - they do have a choice. For example, rather than promoting and subsidizing fossil fuels, put the effort instead on encouraging the development of renewable and/or lower impact energy sources.
As far as government lifestyle initiatives is concerned - I don't think that shutting down entire economies or global enforcement of self isolation is warranted by the facts. See this video for a better explanation of why:

Corona questions for US forum members

Have you/family member/coworker/friend been tested for the virus? How easy was it to get the test? Do Americans have to pay for the test or does your medical plan pay or is it free (tax payer funded)? If you need to be hospitalized, does your medical plan cover the cost? Or do you pay a...

printplanet.com

I'm guessing that politicians don't want to risk the political impact of of being seen by the voting public of not doing anything or enough. Their response appears to have little to do with the reality of the situation but more the public perception.
A great many small businesses - especially restaurants and goods merchants - will not survive the imposed loss of business.
Sad indeed.

 

[smalloffsetpressexperts]

Seriously?
Fossil fuels are going to be with us for generations to come. This issue is not of usage per se - it's one of scale of usage. By analogy, you can choose to eat a couple of candies a day but if you choose candies as your main nutritional source of calories then you are going to develop health issues.
There are many choices everyone of us makes each day, from what we eat to our mode of transportation that cumulatively can negatively impact the environment minimally or in a significant way. The impact of virus just demonstrates that people have the opportunity and can change the living choices they make when they become aware of the personal health impact of their choices.

RE: Your second post -

In Canada, 9% of electricity is generated with coal.
In the U.S., 27% of electricity is generated with coal.
In 2018, the Government of Canada announced final regulations to phase-out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030. So, rather than encouraging its usage we're actively discouraging it. Even the US was able to change how it burned coal in order to moderate its negative impact - for example with the clean air act of 1990 ( Acid Rain )

The analogy of candy is kind of lame. Give people credit for common sense when it comes to eating candy which eating candy has no effect of running a business, trying to get to work, dropping the kids off to school and having enough Volts/Amperage to fire up these huge digital copiers to help produce junk mail mostly to get paid and get more candy to get fat. LOL

President Trump in my eyes is keeping us safe. He is aware we need all energy sources in use and stocked piled. That includes fossil fuels for now. We are all spinning on the same planet and yes I care to ensure our globe is kept safe. When my granddaughter was born and my wife and I saw her, I turned to her and said I want to save this world, now that she is a part of it.

So your point is Canada is better than the USA?

 

[Puch]

For example, rather than promoting and subsidizing fossil fuels, put the effort instead on encouraging the development of renewable and/or lower impact energy sources.

For God's sake, what can Average Joe/Jill do about energy sources? Just please, don't come up with the tired 'vote for the good' mantra, as all the so called democracies are just facades, where paid actors (the politicians) provide theathrical performances to befuddle the people, with the great help of the mass media. This is especially true in the US and in most of the EU countries, where all the parties are pushing the same agenda. If you need some hard facts, just look up what the the Green Party has caused to Germany, with their insistence of shutting down all the nuclear power sources, in the wake of Fukushima. They turned back to coal, emissing more than before. And yes, they are on the top edge with renewables, they produce a lot of energy with solar and wind generators, but that's not enough in all cases, as Smalloffsetexpert said.

A great many small businesses - especially restaurants and goods merchants - will not survive the imposed loss of business.
Sad indeed.

This is why I don't understand your hooray optimism.

 

[Alois Senefelder]

Hello Puch,


Hungary, Viktor Oban !!!!!!!!


Regards, Alois

 

[gordo]

The analogy of candy is kind of lame. Give people credit for common sense when it comes to eating candy

Correct, it was an analogy to illustrate an idea. Whether people have common sense regarding consumption is a different topic.

President Trump in my eyes is keeping us safe.

I specifically didn't mention Trump as it's not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

When my granddaughter was born and my wife and I saw her, I turned to her and said I want to save this world, now that she is a part of it.

Good! There's much you can do as an individual by the choices you make and the example you set.

So your point is Canada is better than the USA?

Nope. Wasn't my point.

 

[Puch]

Hungary, Viktor Oban !!!!!!!!

Yes, our 'King' for now. I would respect him much more, if he would have said a plain 'no' to the current hysteria, based on a rebranded flu strain. Of course that wasn't a possible choice for him.