Why is there no Manhattan Project to tackle climate change?



A boat passes between wind turbines at the London Array project, the world's largest windfarm

Why is there no Manhattan Project to tackle climate change?

We must overcome short-termism, inconvenient truths and cuts to R&D and find the Brunels of low carbon technology

Here’s a thought. If necessity is the motherhood of invention how come we are so far away from the wholesale deployment of low carbon energy technologies that can redeem humanity from the worst impacts of climate change?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/b...ate-change



[EDIT: No posting of complete articles ... that is copyright infringement. -GTS]

(03-11-2014 01:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Here’s a thought. If necessity is the motherhood of invention how come we are so far away from the wholesale deployment of low carbon energy technologies that can redeem humanity from the worst impacts of climate change?

Because the activists behind the AGW movement aren't interested in solving the problem, they're interested in perpetuating it because they can make more money off it that way.

If the problem is real, then there SHOULD be a Manhattan Project to address it. But the people insisting it is real are NOT calling for that. They're calling for wealth transfers to the third world, and for the developed countries to eschew efficient energy sources in favor of second-rate solutions, while the third world is allowed to make the problem ten times worse.

I hope you didn't take the time to actually read that.

Climate what? Never heard of it.

You advocate keeping it secret. Please do.

whose to say their isn't a secret Manhattan project?

but on another note, i dont understand why nuclear power isnt more widespread. it is about as clean as you can get and still get reliable energy to the masses.

Pretty funny.

Nuclear does seem to be the answer. Shame we didn't
mostly agree on that forty years ago.

(03-11-2014 01:57 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  whose to say their isn't a secret Manhattan project?

but on another note, i dont understand why nuclear power isnt more widespread. it is about as clean as you can get and still get reliable energy to the masses.

Fukushima...

Do you read? Google is your friend.

Moonbat ramblings.

(03-11-2014 02:04 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Nuclear does seem to be the answer. Shame we didn't
mostly agree on that forty years ago.

Tell that to the Japanese...

(03-11-2014 02:35 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(03-11-2014 02:04 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Nuclear does seem to be the answer. Shame we didn't
mostly agree on that forty years ago.

Tell that to the Japanese...

Or you could have facts?

[/quote]http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causesDeaths and Adverse Health Effects To-Date: Up till now, no one has died of radiation exposure. The main adverse health effects due to the Fukushima accident have been psychological. [/quote]

(03-11-2014 01:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-11-2014 01:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Here’s a thought. If necessity is the motherhood of invention how come we are so far away from the wholesale deployment of low carbon energy technologies that can redeem humanity from the worst impacts of climate change?

Because the activists behind the AGW movement aren't interested in solving the problem, they're interested in perpetuating it because they can make more money off it that way.

If the problem is real, then there SHOULD be a Manhattan Project to address it. But the people insisting it is real are NOT calling for that. They're calling for wealth transfers to the third world, and for the developed countries to eschew efficient energy sources in favor of second-rate solutions, while the third world is allowed to make the problem ten times worse.

Yep.

(03-11-2014 02:33 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(03-11-2014 01:57 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  whose to say their isn't a secret Manhattan project?

but on another note, i dont understand why nuclear power isnt more widespread. it is about as clean as you can get and still get reliable energy to the masses.

Fukushima...

Do you read? Google is your friend.

I'm pretty sure you could put some reactors in ND, NM, AZ, and not worry about tidal waves.

1) You posted the whole article. That is a no-no.
2) The science IS NOT in. Majority opinion is irrelevant to science. Once upon a time majority opinion was the Sun revolved around the Earth. The science was in on that one so much you'd get burned at the stake for attempting to refute it.
3) The "solutions" offered have huge regulatory and tax cost and do not make even the slightest of changes in climate.
4) Every single model the IPCC and everybody uses to scream global warming catastrophe has been dead wrong the last 10 years.
5) The United States cannot bind other countries, including heavier polluters like India and China, making the exercise further pointless.
6) When the government tries to invest in something renewable, it becomes a big turd of crony capitalism and political favors and fails spectacularly. See: Solyndra, Chevy Volt
7) We are utterly bankrupt from medicare, medicaid, Obamacare, military adventurism, and social security ... as well as the seemingly infinite list of other crap you want government to do poorly, inefficiently, in a crony capitalist way, while paying those who do the work on the government side salary and benefits far beyond what they would otherwise earn.

I think that about covers it ... but let me know if you need any more reasons and I'm sure I could come up with a few.

There is the $20B + fusion energy project known as ITER.

Because we can't control the weather?

If the solution was to blow something up, we would have done it already. That's kind of our thing.

(03-11-2014 03:24 PM)Clueless Economist Wrote:  There is the $20B + fusion energy project known as ITER.

Can't ignore the NIF.

(03-11-2014 03:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  1) You posted the whole article. That is a no-no.
2) The science IS NOT in. Majority opinion is irrelevant to science. Once upon a time majority opinion was the Sun revolved around the Earth. The science was in on that one so much you'd get burned in the stake for attempting to refute it.

Really?

Quote:3) The "solutions" offered have huge regulatory and tax cost and do not make even the slightest of changes in climate.
4) Every single model the IPCC and everybody uses to scream global warming catastrophe has been dead wrong the last 10 years.
5) The United States cannot bind other countries, including heavier polluters like India and China, making the exercise further pointless.
6) When the government tries to invest in something renewable, it becomes a big turd of crony capitalism and political favors and fails spectacularly. See: Solyndra, Chevy Volt
7) We are utterly bankrupt from medicare, medicaid, Obamacare, military adventurism, and social security ... as well as the seemingly infinite list of other crap you want government to do poorly, inefficiently, in a crony capitalist way, while paying those who do the work on the government side salary and benefits far beyond what they would otherwise earn.

I think that about covers it ... but let me know if you need any more reasons and I'm sure I could come up with a few.

I'm confused. Are you for or against the idea?