China, US and the environment - Page 9

On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote:
Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.

On August 28 2019 21:09 Broetchenholer wrote:
Australia and Canada make some sense due to the weather which also explains the States numbers to some extent, which is 20t. Canadas 27 million people have a high carbon footprint of 24t and this should be solved, the next big nation on the list would be Russia with 14t and then we come to the 10t mark where most of the other g20 nations sit at or under. So yeah, America is not the worst polluter per capita, just one of the worst.

Sometimes a bad piece of legislation doesn’t die, it just returns in another form—call it a zombie bill. In this case, the zombie is a bill that morphed into a proposed rule that would upend how the federal government uses science in its decisionmaking. It would allow the US Environmental Protection Agency to pick and choose what science it uses to write legislation on air, water, and toxic pollution that affects human health and the environment.

Republicans tried to pass this type of legislation from 2014 to 2017, with titles such as the Secret Science Reform Act, followed the next year by the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act. The idea, which on the surface seems like a good one, was to force the EPA to use only research that is publicly accessible, reproducible, and independently verified.

Critics, including much of the US scientific community, complained it would throw out nearly all epidemiological studies in which patients give consent to use their medical information but not their names, to protect their privacy. That would mean limiting studies on the effects of air pollution on lung disease or toxic chemicals’ effects on Parkinson’s disease and cancer, for example. Scientists also argued that some data, by its nature, can never be reproduced. That would include, for example, the collected particles spewed out by erupting volcanoes, or oil-stained creatures from the Deepwater Horizon spill, or tissue samples taken from soldiers exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.

Fewer mock commando raids to test nuclear power plants’ defenses against terrorist attacks. Fewer, smaller government inspections for plant safety issues. Less notice to the public and to state governors when problems arise.

They’re part of the money-saving rollbacks sought by the country’s nuclear industry under President Trump and already approved or pending approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, largely with little input from the general public.

The nuclear power industry says the safety culture in the U.S. nuclear industry — 40 years after a partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania — is “exceptional” and merits the easing of government inspections.

Opponents say the changes are bringing the administration’s business-friendly, rule-cutting mission to an industry — nuclear reactors — in which the stakes are too high to cut corners.

While many of the regulatory rollbacks happening at other agencies under the current administration may be concerning, “there aren’t many that come with the existential risks of a nuclear reactor having a malfunction,” said Geoff Fettus, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council on nuclear issues.

On November 21 2019 08:33 JimmiC wrote:


I've read various things about disposing of the nuclear waste, some says it is relatively easy and than other stuff says we actually have no idea what to do with it and are just storing it in ways that may also not be that safe. Nuclear may be just trading one problem for another.

That being said if the nuclear creates a problem further down the line it might be the best way to go for now until we can come up with better alternatives. The problem with so much money being involved in science is it hard to tell what is the truth and what is bought and paid for by various industries.

On November 21 2019 09:06 JimmiC wrote:


Can you site that? It is not what I have read.

On November 21 2019 07:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm glad to see the USA and Germany go with the less expensive power generation options. Where I used to live had the lowest electricity and heating prices in North America. The people and industry benefited accordingly. It was great. For many decades Ontario was Canada's "land of opportunity". That ended when they stopped generating electricity via coal and went all nuclear. Prices skyrocketed. It screwed both industry and the people. I moved a couple hours down the road to a place where electricity prices are super low and the people and industry benefits accordingly.

I'd like to see Ontario do what Germany is doing and go back to coal.

I come from a family of economic migrants. As is my family's tradition I voted with my feet and left Ontario, Canada and went to a place with better opportunities.

Its pretty hilarious listening to Canadians talk about how the decisions they make could either destroy or rescue the global environment. Nothing Canada does matters much. Even assuming the environmental doomsayers are correct its the USA, India, and China that matters.

Its going to be interesting to see Canada try to compete with the USA now that Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord and repealed all the laws that were intended to have the USA abide by the rules in the Paris Accord.

I think Canada is going to get crushed. Ontario has been getting crushed for 10 years. Canada has one legit hope and that is Trudeau's promise to plant 2 billion trees. Trudeau's environmental projection specialists can start predicting its ok to ignore CO2 emission limits because in 30 years all these new trees will soak up all the carbon, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and whatever else these environmentalists can dream up, LOL.

You are calling into question someone else's #. However, at least 1 # you have is not correct. Canada has a population of ~ 37 million.

I don't think "solving" Canada means much. Again, this is even assuming the environmental doomsayers are correct.

On November 21 2019 08:33 JimmiC wrote:


I've read various things about disposing of the nuclear waste, some says it is relatively easy and than other stuff says we actually have no idea what to do with it and are just storing it in ways that may also not be that safe. Nuclear may be just trading one problem for another.

That being said if the nuclear creates a problem further down the line it might be the best way to go for now until we can come up with better alternatives. The problem with so much money being involved in science is it hard to tell what is the truth and what is bought and paid for by various industries.