Obama Starts His End Game

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

Question for you Hudson and Row.

Lets say we had taken the 2 trillion we spent in Iraq and invested it in combating climate change instead.

What would be different now from a climate perspective? 10 years from now? 100?

Dont forget to include the impacts on climate of things out of the influence of money. Things like solar flares, volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes, etc.

That's a good question, obviously it is speculation, but I would suggest to you that even if we had spent $2 trillion on pure research we would still be far better off than spending $2 trillion on war.

Could $2 trillion have designed and built gigantic fusion powered carbon scrubbers?

Maybe

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

That's a good question, obviously it is speculation, but I would suggest to you that even if we had spent $2 trillion on pure research we would still be far better off than spending $2 trillion on war.

Could $2 trillion have designed and built gigantic fusion powered carbon scrubbers?

Maybe

If we had fusion we would not need scrubbers.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

If we had fusion we would not need scrubbers.

We'd probably still need them, lots of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere from all kinds of sources all over the world.

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

We'd probably still need them, lots of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere from all kinds of sources all over the world.

Most of which are directly related to burning of fossil fuels which fusion would theoretically replace, right?.

But maybe we could cap all the volcanoes with gigantic scrubbers in case they do blow. Shouldnt cost too much to do that.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

Most of which are directly related to burning of fossil fuels which fusion would theoretically replace, right?.

But maybe we could cap all the volcanoes with gigantic scrubbers in case they do blow. Shouldnt cost too much to do that.

A completely CO2 free energy source would be a good thing for the planet, but people make CO2 in lots of different ways.

And we'd still need to help the planet recover from over a century of fossil fuel burning.

[RealGatorFan]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

Question for you Hudson and Row.

Lets say we had taken the 2 trillion we spent in Iraq and invested it in combating climate change instead.

What would be different now from a climate perspective? 10 years from now? 100?

Dont forget to include the impacts on climate of things out of the influence of money. Things like solar flares, volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes, etc.

Nothing would be different. We would just be $2 Trillion poorer and less safe since al quaeda would be more powerful now since we never would have done much to stop their growth. I can't imagine how much more entrenched they would have been if we didn't bleed their assets? The recession would have given the best opportunity to attack everyone while everyone was pre-occupied with the collapse.

I hated to start a war we couldn't pinpoint the aggressor, but it was the only option at the time.

[RealGatorFan]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

A completely CO2 free energy source would be a good thing for the planet, but people make CO2 in lots of different ways.

And we'd still need to help the planet recover from over a century of fossil fuel burning.

Yes, but how do you enforce EVERYONE? China and India produce most of the pollution on this planet with many 3 world and emerging countries. The US is actually doing really well. So we make our country the best in the world but if you don't cut it everywhere, why improve 25% when the other 75% is still polluting?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by RealGatorFan

Nothing would be different. We would just be $2 Trillion poorer and less safe since al quaeda would be more powerful now since we never would have done much to stop their growth. I can't imagine how much more entrenched they would have been if we didn't bleed their assets? The recession would have given the best opportunity to attack everyone while everyone was pre-occupied with the collapse.

I hated to start a war we couldn't pinpoint the aggressor, but it was the only option at the time.

Get this through your head, the Iraq war had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda

[G8trGr8t]

in the beginning it didn't but post war they expended substantial resources and took major losses trying to battle the us in Iraq. the depletion of resources and lieutinet level leaders combined with keeping their focus on Iraq did not help them in their goal to attack USA..their attacks on civilians trying to create unrest cost them the support of a lot of muslims too..but I still say we never should have went into Iraq..

if we would have spent 2 trillion on natural gas fleets and trains we would be producing a lot less co2, importing a lot less oil, and our cost of transportation decrease would have substantially increased our comeptetiveness. if we would have spent the billions wasted on solar power on natural gas fleets the same thing just on a smaller scale would be occurring.