To the PP here who seems to think that we could solve all carbon emissions problems with nuclear energy, what's your plan for transportation, exactly? We're putting nuclear reactors in cars and planes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think our you bring climate into it you will sound nuts. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong but I wouldn’t say it out loud at work.
I personally don’t like zoom, I like in person trainings and meetings. I homeschooled my kid for a year when she was 8 because I didn’t think online learning was good.
If you want to bring it up say it would be more cost effective for the company to decrease travel.

OP here. Yes, that is my concern. But I think it is a shame that most people would probably take that view. I work frequently with climate projections, and the more you work with the data, the more it is seems crazy to NOT make a personal effort to do something. Wind/solar isn't going to be sufficient to permit us to operate at our current level of consumption, and the public isn't keen on nuclear power. So what options are left other than to change our consumption behavior?

If the environmental movement really cared about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change they would have been ALL over nuclear power. And yet they weren't. It would not be that hard to mount a movement to educate the public on the amazing safety record and greenness of this option. The facts are on the side of nuclear power. It is truly the only thing that would have brought a drastic reduction to greenhouse gases. We could have spent decades building on the existing technology and safety record to truly enhance this energy source. Now its too late and we've passed the tipping point. Makes you wonder what the real agenda is.

But if we converted to nuclear (thus solving the problem), it would eliminate a perfect way to control the public through taxation and regulation. And what good is the point of solving the climate crisis if you can’t use it as a way to control virtually every aspect of human behavior while doing it - from where people live, to what they eat, how much they pay in taxes and whether or not they’re allowed to travel.

If you solved the problem of carbon emissions, you lose all that stuff.

Why would ANY government want to give THAT power up?

Please explain which governments are telling people where they can live and whether they're allowed to travel for climate reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think our you bring climate into it you will sound nuts. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong but I wouldn’t say it out loud at work.
I personally don’t like zoom, I like in person trainings and meetings. I homeschooled my kid for a year when she was 8 because I didn’t think online learning was good.
If you want to bring it up say it would be more cost effective for the company to decrease travel.

OP here. Yes, that is my concern. But I think it is a shame that most people would probably take that view. I work frequently with climate projections, and the more you work with the data, the more it is seems crazy to NOT make a personal effort to do something. Wind/solar isn't going to be sufficient to permit us to operate at our current level of consumption, and the public isn't keen on nuclear power. So what options are left other than to change our consumption behavior?

Because there is an agenda and it’s not what you think it is.

What is this supposed to mean?

I have pushed back against frivolous business travel because I just frankly hate it. I don't use environmental considerations as the reason, though. I am incredibly busy and I just state that I lose a lot of valuable meeting and work time flying across the country. I say that I find it hard to justify the down time of not being able to take meetings or work efficiently when on flights/in cabs/etc...this seems to resonate.

It's insane what they waste on unnecessary business trips, time money, impact on the environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think our you bring climate into it you will sound nuts. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong but I wouldn’t say it out loud at work.
I personally don’t like zoom, I like in person trainings and meetings. I homeschooled my kid for a year when she was 8 because I didn’t think online learning was good.
If you want to bring it up say it would be more cost effective for the company to decrease travel.

OP here. Yes, that is my concern. But I think it is a shame that most people would probably take that view. I work frequently with climate projections, and the more you work with the data, the more it is seems crazy to NOT make a personal effort to do something. Wind/solar isn't going to be sufficient to permit us to operate at our current level of consumption, and the public isn't keen on nuclear power. So what options are left other than to change our consumption behavior?

If the environmental movement really cared about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change they would have been ALL over nuclear power. And yet they weren't. It would not be that hard to mount a movement to educate the public on the amazing safety record and greenness of this option. The facts are on the side of nuclear power. It is truly the only thing that would have brought a drastic reduction to greenhouse gases. We could have spent decades building on the existing technology and safety record to truly enhance this energy source. Now its too late and we've passed the tipping point. Makes you wonder what the real agenda is.

Once you realize the push for nuclear power comes exclusively from Republicans who love to suck at the teat of the taxpayer and once you consider that nuclear is nowhere near as green as its proponents want to pretend, that the waste is forever, it becomes clear that it’s a boondoggle. And way effing off topic from a person who points out that maybe we don’t need as much business travel as businesses think.

Anonymous wrote:Respectfully, can you understand your employers motivation in wanting to attend in person v on Zoom? Do you realize that relationships are easier to start and cultivate in person rather than virtually?

A lot of things are easier if we expend more CO2. It is easier to travel in an SUV than in a sub-compact. It is easier and more comfortable to fly business class instead of economy. It is more pleasant to have our homes heated to 78F in the winter and cooled to 70F in the summer. It is more fun to take a lots of vacations to far-off destinations than to limit our traveling to the bare essentials. But these actions ignore the potential consequences on the planet's atmosphere and ecosystems. We have only one planet to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

Could you suggest flying via a lower carbon (direct) route, or prioritizing airlines with a more modern fleet? Depending on where you are traveling, might rail be a viable option?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think our you bring climate into it you will sound nuts. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong but I wouldn’t say it out loud at work.
I personally don’t like zoom, I like in person trainings and meetings. I homeschooled my kid for a year when she was 8 because I didn’t think online learning was good.
If you want to bring it up say it would be more cost effective for the company to decrease travel.

OP here. Yes, that is my concern. But I think it is a shame that most people would probably take that view. I work frequently with climate projections, and the more you work with the data, the more it is seems crazy to NOT make a personal effort to do something. Wind/solar isn't going to be sufficient to permit us to operate at our current level of consumption, and the public isn't keen on nuclear power. So what options are left other than to change our consumption behavior?

If the environmental movement really cared about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change they would have been ALL over nuclear power. And yet they weren't. It would not be that hard to mount a movement to educate the public on the amazing safety record and greenness of this option. The facts are on the side of nuclear power. It is truly the only thing that would have brought a drastic reduction to greenhouse gases. We could have spent decades building on the existing technology and safety record to truly enhance this energy source. Now its too late and we've passed the tipping point. Makes you wonder what the real agenda is.

You are so right. We could address excess co2 emissions within several with nuclear power if we were serious, but we’re not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think our you bring climate into it you will sound nuts. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong but I wouldn’t say it out loud at work.
I personally don’t like zoom, I like in person trainings and meetings. I homeschooled my kid for a year when she was 8 because I didn’t think online learning was good.
If you want to bring it up say it would be more cost effective for the company to decrease travel.

OP here. Yes, that is my concern. But I think it is a shame that most people would probably take that view. I work frequently with climate projections, and the more you work with the data, the more it is seems crazy to NOT make a personal effort to do something. Wind/solar isn't going to be sufficient to permit us to operate at our current level of consumption, and the public isn't keen on nuclear power. So what options are left other than to change our consumption behavior?

If the environmental movement really cared about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change they would have been ALL over nuclear power. And yet they weren't. It would not be that hard to mount a movement to educate the public on the amazing safety record and greenness of this option. The facts are on the side of nuclear power. It is truly the only thing that would have brought a drastic reduction to greenhouse gases. We could have spent decades building on the existing technology and safety record to truly enhance this energy source. Now its too late and we've passed the tipping point. Makes you wonder what the real agenda is.

But if we converted to nuclear (thus solving the problem), it would eliminate a perfect way to control the public through taxation and regulation. And what good is the point of solving the climate crisis if you can’t use it as a way to control virtually every aspect of human behavior while doing it - from where people live, to what they eat, how much they pay in taxes and whether or not they’re allowed to travel.

If you solved the problem of carbon emissions, you lose all that stuff.

Why would ANY government want to give THAT power up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think our you bring climate into it you will sound nuts. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong but I wouldn’t say it out loud at work.
I personally don’t like zoom, I like in person trainings and meetings. I homeschooled my kid for a year when she was 8 because I didn’t think online learning was good.
If you want to bring it up say it would be more cost effective for the company to decrease travel.

OP here. Yes, that is my concern. But I think it is a shame that most people would probably take that view. I work frequently with climate projections, and the more you work with the data, the more it is seems crazy to NOT make a personal effort to do something. Wind/solar isn't going to be sufficient to permit us to operate at our current level of consumption, and the public isn't keen on nuclear power. So what options are left other than to change our consumption behavior?

Because there is an agenda and it’s not what you think it is.

BINGO.

Anonymous wrote:Respectfully, can you understand your employers motivation in wanting to attend in person v on Zoom? Do you realize that relationships are easier to start and cultivate in person rather than virtually?

I love how people will rationalize ANY DAMN THING, so long as it’s something they enjoy.

“do you realize that relationships are easier to start and cultivate in person rather than virtually?”

Sure do!

Especially when those relationships are cultivated in places that are attractive travel destinations with fine lodging, amenities and cuisine! So what if the conference is for reducing CO2 emissions but requires no less than 100 airline flights from all over the world to get everyone there - it’s worth it because We’Re SaViNg TeH pLaNeT!!!!

Ever notice how no one wants to hold a conference on the north slope of Prudhoe Bay Alaska or lower Mongolia or the Atacama Desert? Nah. All the locations seem to all have in common being beautiful, sought after destinations. Crazy, right?!?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think our you bring climate into it you will sound nuts. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong but I wouldn’t say it out loud at work.
I personally don’t like zoom, I like in person trainings and meetings. I homeschooled my kid for a year when she was 8 because I didn’t think online learning was good.
If you want to bring it up say it would be more cost effective for the company to decrease travel.

OP here. Yes, that is my concern. But I think it is a shame that most people would probably take that view. I work frequently with climate projections, and the more you work with the data, the more it is seems crazy to NOT make a personal effort to do something. Wind/solar isn't going to be sufficient to permit us to operate at our current level of consumption, and the public isn't keen on nuclear power. So what options are left other than to change our consumption behavior?

Because there is an agenda and it’s not what you think it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think our you bring climate into it you will sound nuts. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong but I wouldn’t say it out loud at work.
I personally don’t like zoom, I like in person trainings and meetings. I homeschooled my kid for a year when she was 8 because I didn’t think online learning was good.
If you want to bring it up say it would be more cost effective for the company to decrease travel.

OP here. Yes, that is my concern. But I think it is a shame that most people would probably take that view. I work frequently with climate projections, and the more you work with the data, the more it is seems crazy to NOT make a personal effort to do something. Wind/solar isn't going to be sufficient to permit us to operate at our current level of consumption, and the public isn't keen on nuclear power. So what options are left other than to change our consumption behavior?

If the environmental movement really cared about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change they would have been ALL over nuclear power. And yet they weren't. It would not be that hard to mount a movement to educate the public on the amazing safety record and greenness of this option. The facts are on the side of nuclear power. It is truly the only thing that would have brought a drastic reduction to greenhouse gases. We could have spent decades building on the existing technology and safety record to truly enhance this energy source. Now its too late and we've passed the tipping point. Makes you wonder what the real agenda is.

Anonymous wrote:I think our you bring climate into it you will sound nuts. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong but I wouldn’t say it out loud at work.
I personally don’t like zoom, I like in person trainings and meetings. I homeschooled my kid for a year when she was 8 because I didn’t think online learning was good.
If you want to bring it up say it would be more cost effective for the company to decrease travel.

OP here. Yes, that is my concern. But I think it is a shame that most people would probably take that view. I work frequently with climate projections, and the more you work with the data, the more it is seems crazy to NOT make a personal effort to do something. Wind/solar isn't going to be sufficient to permit us to operate at our current level of consumption, and the public isn't keen on nuclear power. So what options are left other than to change our consumption behavior?