Climate change -- Existential threat to humanity
- Thread starter ZNP
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Depends what you mean by zero emissions. A certain amount of CO2 is essential to life. The hope of the world is fusion power. The research has been going on for decades. It's now possible to produce a reaction that generates more power than it takes to create the process. However, this is disingenuous. For example, lasers are used in some systems. They have massive power outputs. But to get that power output, they must be powered themselves. And that is the issue that has not been overcome.
There is also still research on Thorium reactors, far safer than Uranium based reactors. Add to the mix all the renewables and such and yes, zero emissions is possible. Eventually.
I do not believe that climate change is the consequence of industrialisation. I believe that the sin of mankind is ultimately the problem. God could intervene to fix the weather. Since mankind rejects God, why should He bother? God created the vast rainforests that regulate the climate and balance CO2. Man cuts them down without any thought for the consequences. Climate change hysteria is simply a distraction for the real problem. Man rejects God's ways. God leaves them to their own corrupt ways. They reap what they sow. (See Romans 1)
There is also still research on Thorium reactors, far safer than Uranium based reactors. Add to the mix all the renewables and such and yes, zero emissions is possible. Eventually.
I do not believe that climate change is the consequence of industrialisation. I believe that the sin of mankind is ultimately the problem. God could intervene to fix the weather. Since mankind rejects God, why should He bother? God created the vast rainforests that regulate the climate and balance CO2. Man cuts them down without any thought for the consequences. Climate change hysteria is simply a distraction for the real problem. Man rejects God's ways. God leaves them to their own corrupt ways. They reap what they sow. (See Romans 1)
-
1
-
1
- Show all
While I appreciate your enthusiasm for finding a solution to the issue of burning fossil fuels, I have to say that your proposed solution is not practical. Replacing airplanes and ships with sailboats, and cars and trucks with horse and buggy is not feasible for the majority of people in our modern society. Additionally, not everyone has access to nuclear power for electric trains. However, there are other solutions out there such as electric cars and more efficient public transportation systems. It's important to keep looking for innovative ways to reduce our carbon footprint and support initiatives like carbon offsetting programs at websites like www.carbonclick.com that can help you understand how your life affects the planet.
Not to mention that EV's actually have a greater carbon imprint than gasoline powered vehicles.
An electric vehicle, because of the mining for the elements necessary for the battery, before ever being driven has the ecological effect of a gasoline powered car with 80,000 miles. When you add in that 40% of electricity is still from coal, EV's are actually worse for the environment than gasoline engines.
Typical liberal fix. The cure is worse than the condition.
An electric vehicle, because of the mining for the elements necessary for the battery, before ever being driven has the ecological effect of a gasoline powered car with 80,000 miles. When you add in that 40% of electricity is still from coal, EV's are actually worse for the environment than gasoline engines.
Typical liberal fix. The cure is worse than the condition.
-
2
- Show all
There are 16 nuclear accidents since Chernobyl listed in Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
Why is is important to look for ways to reduce carbon friend?
Here's my carbon footprint......
🥾🥾🔥 🏕️
Stomping out my campfire with a size 11 EE pair of heavy soled hiking boots.
Carbon is good.
God made carbon.
Carbon is a molecule of life.
Carbon is fuel.
It keeps our homes warm.
The ashes nourish our garden soil.
Carbon dioxide is the breath of plants.
It's only toxic at levels the insane liberal tyrants try to enforce upon our airways as suffocation devices.
Let the tyrant's drive electric scooters and eat their maggots, tarantulas and be happy.
This goes out to Klaus A. Swab and Bill Gates of Hell.
Here's my carbon footprint......
🥾🥾🔥 🏕️
Stomping out my campfire with a size 11 EE pair of heavy soled hiking boots.
Carbon is good.
God made carbon.
Carbon is a molecule of life.
Carbon is fuel.
It keeps our homes warm.
The ashes nourish our garden soil.
Carbon dioxide is the breath of plants.
It's only toxic at levels the insane liberal tyrants try to enforce upon our airways as suffocation devices.
Let the tyrant's drive electric scooters and eat their maggots, tarantulas and be happy.
This goes out to Klaus A. Swab and Bill Gates of Hell.
-
1
- Show all
The flood plains from the annual thaws are where the farms used to thrive with all of that organic silt. The mountains are full of minerals from the decayed organic matter and rocks. They flooded the valleys and left the nutrients the plants and people require for good health.
In 1882 the first electric plant in Wisconsin provided power to industry and the public. By 1900, the cities where converting to electric power and the rivers were damned. Hydroelectric was the beginning of the end of good nutritious farming practices. The replacement was NPK commercially manufactured fertilizer.
The Devil really IS in the details.
If Algore really believed in his own snake oil, he'd drink it himself and not own beach front property. I guess that's just an inconvenient truth. 😉
In 1882 the first electric plant in Wisconsin provided power to industry and the public. By 1900, the cities where converting to electric power and the rivers were damned. Hydroelectric was the beginning of the end of good nutritious farming practices. The replacement was NPK commercially manufactured fertilizer.
The Devil really IS in the details.
If Algore really believed in his own snake oil, he'd drink it himself and not own beach front property. I guess that's just an inconvenient truth. 😉
-
2
-
1
- Show all