Comments by "Brenda Rua" (@brendarua01) on "A climate solution where all sides can win | Ted Halstead" video.

  1. It strikes me that the new element to this is the direct dividends to the public, as opposed to feeding the public coffers. The most interesting part of that is the the simple allocation of the same amount to everyone. I can't imagine that getting through the US congress in one piece LoL
    17
  2. I wish someone had told your parents.
    13
  3. +M S If those people had the same impact on resources and environment as people i the developed countries, you'd have a point. But they don't. So you don't. But you're closer to the mark than Soren because India and China want in on the action.
    5
  4. Soren just needed to vent his racist tank of bs before it blew a seal. Then we'd have had a methane crisis. No worries.
    3
  5. Agreed. And thanks for the cite, The22726. My only point was that cattle as cattle produce methane biologically, not CO2. But that's not a favor. Methane is 20+ times worse. Add the CO2 used in the production of cattle for beef, ranging from fertalizer and pesticides, running equipment, transportation and refrigeration, and eating beef is a big deal. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=greenhouse+gas+production+by+cattle
    3
  6. +Mayfly that statement is so vacuous that it is meaningless. Good joke!
    2
  7. +Dimetropteryx It's looking like Scam and Johnie Black are the same fool. They have the same m/o and don't have any arguments. They just contradict. It's like an old Monty Python skit but done with far, far less talent.
    2
  8. Good point. Though technically the cattle generate methane. Still, there's all the other systems that support that industry and they create CO2.
    2
  9. +John Black you are always spouting off with alt facts. Show the evidence dude or STFU. I believe you're not stupid, but just enjoy obfuscating and shilling, sprinkled with high-level trolling. For starters, temperature can vary from year to year. Your point about this year and next, while nebulous, is little better than saying your city was colder last year than it has been in x years. It is the trend that matters. Second, CO2 is a well mixed gas, as is the atmosphere in general. So even if your unstated assumption that lower elevations of a gas affect the insolation value is true, it does not apply. I could go on. But I think the point is clear. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/predictions-future-global-climate
    1
  10. +John Black. Bla bla bla. Show us the evidence. You just spout off and prove my point. Thank-you-very-much!
    1
  11. +pOps You just contradicted yourself. First it's a conspiracy cult. Then there's millions of years of climate change. Dude. Seriously go take your meds and then a nap. I can't take another rib cracking laugh.
    1
  12. +M S I think we're not really disagreeing. But we are looking at different points in time. Right now the averaged impact of individuals in the industrialized west far outweighs that of Africa or the Middle East. It is just wrong on so many levels to point to them as Soren did.
    1
  13. STFU troll John Black. Of course CO2 is needed. No one has ever said otherwise. And LMAO you call me a denier? You're the one in another comment here denying it. And I called you out there to provide evidence. You're so fake. You've proved you're a troll. My work is done. We're done.
    1
  14. Ok Johnie. I get it now. You want a job on El Trumpo's staff. You've proven you can lie with the best of them there. Go for it! Your talents are wasted here.
    1