Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 . . . 54 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1652524 - Posted: 13 Mar 2015, 16:12:12 UTC
Last modified: 13 Mar 2015, 16:12:30 UTC

For all this to work, there must be the driving force of world politics:


'Long struggle' [political] warning on climate

America’s chief climate negotiator has warned of the long battle ahead to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Todd Stern told BBC News that by the end of the month, he expects the US to make a “quite ambitious” declaration on climate change.

He praised China’s projected offer to the December climate summit in Paris.

But he said the conference would not itself solve the climate problem...

... The EU has already offered a 40% cut on 1990 levels by 2030. The US will soon offer – probably a 26-28% reduction below 2005 levels by 2025. Comparison is hard because of different baselines, but some experts say the two appear roughly comparable in terms of effort.

China is expected to offer to peak emissions by 2030 at the latest, and to produce 20% of its energy from nuclear and renewables by the same date...

... China’s commitment to add 800 gigawatts of renewables or nuclear was “really impressive,” he said. “This is an enormous amount – more than all the coal used in China now. To put it in perspective, the entire US energy system is about 1,100 gigawatts.”...



And the UK trickles along at a mere 40GWatts at this moment.



And for all that politics not to work, do we next have to fall back onto the world force of revolution?...

All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1652524 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1653561 - Posted: 16 Mar 2015, 15:56:52 UTC
Last modified: 16 Mar 2015, 15:57:20 UTC

Is this a continuing revolution that is gaining an upper hand?...


Oxford University to rule on coal investments

The University of Oxford will decide whether to pull out of its investments in coal and oil sands later.

Students have been campaigning on the issue for over a year because scientists say burning the world's coal will result in reckless risks to the climate.

It is part of a global movement for public organisations to divest from fossil fuels. Glasgow University has done so, along with other organisations worldwide. They include Stanford University, the British Medical Association, the World Council of Churches and the Rockefeller Brothers.

This month, members of the London Assembly urged the Mayor Boris Johnson to withdraw investments in coal, oil and gas.

It is said to be the fastest-growing divestment movement the world has seen...




"Divestment" is certainly staying in the Fossil's news...


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1653561 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1653907 - Posted: 17 Mar 2015, 22:37:11 UTC

here's a idea to help solve the population problem and Global warming .


How about we share things like wealth and so those that are poor are not .

But that would mean changing our attitude to Economics . Like finally realising being rich is a privilege and not a right . And greed should be shunned




OH right I'm still dreaming wake up Glenn .
ID: 1653907 · Report as offensive
Profile The Simonator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5700
Credit: 3,855,702
RAC: 50
United Kingdom
Message 1654532 - Posted: 19 Mar 2015, 13:45:00 UTC

Solar could meet California energy demand 3 to 5 times over
New work from Carnegie's Rebecca R. Hernandez (now at University of California Berkley), Madison K. Hoffacker, and Chris Field found that the amount of energy that could be generated from solar equipment constructed on and around existing infrastructure in California would exceed the state's demand by up to five times. It is published by Nature Climate Change.

If those in power would stop dragging their heels and just build the damn things, the problem could be solved inside a decade.
Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.
ID: 1654532 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1654533 - Posted: 19 Mar 2015, 13:54:49 UTC - in response to Message 1653907.  
Last modified: 19 Mar 2015, 13:58:50 UTC

here's a idea to help solve the population problem and Global warming .
How about we share things like wealth and so those that are poor are not .
But that would mean changing our attitude to Economics . Like finally realising being rich is a privilege and not a right . And greed should be shunned
OH right I'm still dreaming wake up Glenn .

:) Actually this could be done but there are so many that doesn't want that to happen. I will also keep on dreaming:)

btw. Is there here anyone who is updated with fusion energy?
Almost no environmental impact at all.
ID: 1654533 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1654536 - Posted: 19 Mar 2015, 14:06:54 UTC - in response to Message 1654532.  

Solar could meet California energy demand 3 to 5 times over
New work from Carnegie's Rebecca R. Hernandez (now at University of California Berkley), Madison K. Hoffacker, and Chris Field found that the amount of energy that could be generated from solar equipment constructed on and around existing infrastructure in California would exceed the state's demand by up to five times. It is published by Nature Climate Change.
If those in power would stop dragging their heels and just build the damn things, the problem could be solved inside a decade.

The sun in the Sahara can supply all of Europe with enough renewable electricity to meet climate targets by 2020. And building wind mills along the coast of North Africa will be even better.
https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fnyheter%2Fenergi_miljo%2Fsolenergi%2Farticle260048.ece&edit-text=
Guess who are stopping these ideas.
I give you two hints.
Money and politics.
ID: 1654536 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1654706 - Posted: 19 Mar 2015, 22:58:14 UTC - in response to Message 1654679.  
Last modified: 19 Mar 2015, 23:03:04 UTC

The sun in the Sahara can supply all of Europe with enough renewable electricity to meet climate targets by 2020. And building wind mills along the coast of North Africa will be even better.

Do you really wish to entrust you Energy to the same you entrusted The Oil?
Also... Let's not forget the Jihadists.
Forget politics. It is The Money, which controls politics.
There are also environmental concerns regarding Solar Panels.

I do not trust oil companies at all.
The jihadist I dont trust either.
Money, Money, Money, must be funny in the rich man's World I understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0
But environmental concerns regarding Solar Panels in the Sahara?
Sahara is always sunny in the rich man's World:)
ID: 1654706 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11359
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1654738 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 0:48:43 UTC - in response to Message 1654729.  

But considering what is happening there: We may need many, many, many Troops Stationed to safeguard The Panels.

And all other infrastructure both domestic and overseas, so what else is new Captain Obvious?
ID: 1654738 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1654830 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 7:53:11 UTC - in response to Message 1654729.  
Last modified: 20 Mar 2015, 7:55:12 UTC

But considering what is happening there: We may need many, many, many Troops Stationed to safeguard The Panels.

Troops to protect Power plants from missiles and bombers?
ID: 1654830 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1654925 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 13:19:05 UTC
Last modified: 20 Mar 2015, 13:27:02 UTC

DESERTEC was a large scale project supported by a foundation of the same name and the consortium Dii (Desertec industrial initiative) created in Germany as a limited liability company (GmbH). The project aimed at creating a global renewable energy plan based on the concept of harnessing sustainable power from sites where renewable sources of energy are more abundant and transferring it through high-voltage direct current transmission to consumption centers. All kinds of renewable energy sources are envisioned, but the sun-rich deserts of the world play a special role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec#/media/File:DESERTEC-Map_large.jpg
Benefits:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec#Benefits
Obstacles:( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec#Obstacles

btw. In California there is Death Valley and other sunny places.
What is happening now?
ID: 1654925 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1654927 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 13:23:37 UTC - in response to Message 1654922.  
Last modified: 20 Mar 2015, 13:24:22 UTC

North Africa (Sahara), among other places, are having problems with the Local population (Jihadists).

In Europe as well:)
ID: 1654927 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1654931 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 13:34:44 UTC - in response to Message 1654928.  

I am not disagreeing with anything.
Just understand that all 'solutions' to anything, carry their own problems. Which have to be addressed.

Of course.
I think the problems with the Jihadists are small compared to the benefits.
I'm more scared of The Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
Many arabic countries probably don't want Sahara to be energy suppliers to Europe. The oil prizes will drop radically!
Usually this is a thing that starts war.
ID: 1654931 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1654988 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 16:02:33 UTC

An old tech being remade anew?...

Or a distracting ruse to keep on cracking on with oil?...



Hydrogen, hydrogen everywhere...

... So why aren't we all driving round in hydrogen-powered cars, moving our goods in hydrogen-powered lorries, and heating our homes and offices with this wonder element?

In short, fossil fuels got there first.

Oil, coal and gas were easily accessible and powered the industrial revolution. Around them, entire economies and transport infrastructures were built. It was only much later that we realised the potentially catastrophic effects hydrocarbon waste products could have on the environment.

"In the Seventies, the oil crisis made people realise that oil-based economies were vulnerable, so people started to get excited about the potential for the hydrogen economy," says Alex Hart, hydrogen expert at the Carbon Trust.

"But then climate change saw a push towards electricity as the answer to hydrocarbons and hydrogen seemed like a distraction."

Now hydrogen is staging something of a comeback...[?]

... "We're a commercial business - we're not going to build a hydrogen network just for the good of mankind...





All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1654988 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1655011 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 16:58:57 UTC - in response to Message 1654925.  
Last modified: 20 Mar 2015, 17:03:34 UTC



btw. In California there is Death Valley and other sunny places.
What is happening now?


Various environmentalists are fighting solar projects in Death Valley tooth and nail.


http://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/energy/2014/11/20/death-valley-solar-wind-project-rejected/70036542/

The first part of the article:
The Bureau of Land Management rejected a controversial solar project near Death Valley National Park on Thursday, giving hope to environmentalists that regulators will keep renewable energy development away from the most sensitive parts of the desert.

The 200-megawatt Silurian solar farm would have been built along Highway 127, which connects Death Valley National Park with the Mojave National Preserve. A separate proposal for a 200-megawatt wind farm in the same part of the Silurian Valley is still under consideration.

Environmental groups have staunchly opposed both projects, saying they would interrupt undisturbed desert landscapes and impact several threatened species, including desert tortoises and golden eagles. Barbara Boyle, a senior representative with the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, cheered regulators' decision to reject the proposed solar farm.

"This is a location that is right between two national parks. It's absolutely gorgeous," Boyle said. "It's an incredible landscape that is very special, and it does have historical significance, and it's important for wildlife."

The decision to reject the project was made by Jim Kenna, director of the federal Bureau of Land Management's California branch. Kenna told The Desert Sun the Silurian Valley's biological, cultural, recreational and scenic values factored into his decision.


As you can see, the environmentalists are somewhat schizophrenic when it comes to things. Barbara Boyle, a senior official with the Sierra Club's "Beyond Coal Campaign", opposes Fossil Fuel use on one hand, yet also opposes the 'Green' Solar power.

Edit: The Sierra Club's "Beyond Coal Campaign" website.
http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/

One wonders where she wants to get the electricity she uses... Or has she totally gone 'off grid' and lives and works in the... well... 'Dark'?

Crazy... Just Crazy...

They don't want fossil fuel use...

They don't want solar...

They don't want wind turbines (the turbines kill the little birdies, don't ya know)...

They don't want nuclear power (OMG!! The radioactive waste!!!)...

Just where do they want to get their electric power from???

Unicorn phartz???

Must be, since these people are living in fantasy land.
ID: 1655011 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1655016 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 17:12:27 UTC - in response to Message 1655011.  

Just where do they want to get their electric power from???

Unicorn phartz???

Must be, since these people are living in fantasy land.

Maybe they don't want electricity? Everyone back to rocks and clubs.
ID: 1655016 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1655041 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 17:43:37 UTC - in response to Message 1655016.  

Just where do they want to get their electric power from???

Unicorn phartz???

Must be, since these people are living in fantasy land.

Maybe they don't want electricity? Everyone back to rocks and clubs.


Well, that is the ONE sure cure, when combined with the resultant drastic decrease in human population, for Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), which includes quite a bit more than just the GHG-ACC.

Edith Keeler: What... what on earth is that?

Spock: I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins.

-- Star Trek, "The City on the Edge of Forever" (1967)

LOL... Stone knives and Bearskins... the new 'high-tech'.
ID: 1655041 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1655047 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 17:56:48 UTC - in response to Message 1654988.  
Last modified: 20 Mar 2015, 17:57:16 UTC

"We're a commercial business - we're not going to build a hydrogen network just for the good of mankind

Thats very true:)
When commercial business are ruling the World there will be no change to save the planet!
Now commercial business have a lot power to do what they like.
More Power than state governments!
How did that happen?
ID: 1655047 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1655068 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 18:15:52 UTC - in response to Message 1655047.  

"We're a commercial business - we're not going to build a hydrogen network just for the good of mankind

Thats very true:)
When commercial business are ruling the World there will be no change to save the planet!
Now commercial business have a lot power to do what they like.
More Power than state governments!

How did that happen?



That is as it should be.

'Commercial business' did not totally REFUSE to build a hydrogen network. It just said no for now because there was no money in it.

Trust me...

The moment that renewable, 'Green' energy technology progresses to the point that it is more economically profitable than fossil fuel...

In *that* moment you will see all of 'Big Energy' falling over themselves and foaming at the mouth trying to participate.

Until then, well... Frankly, they will stick with the proven, profitable technologies, such as fossil fuels.

It is not about 'saving the planet' to Business. It is about making a profit.

What we need to do is make progress in research into these technologies so that the goal of 'saving the planet' and 'profit' coincide.

But, one shouldn't do that by the government's methods, that of regulation and taxation. Those methods only depress the economy, which reduces the money available for research.
ID: 1655068 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1655074 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 18:30:22 UTC - in response to Message 1655068.  

"We're a commercial business - we're not going to build a hydrogen network just for the good of mankind

Thats very true:)
When commercial business are ruling the World there will be no change to save the planet!
Now commercial business have a lot power to do what they like.
More Power than state governments!

How did that happen?

That is as it should be.

'Commercial business' did not totally REFUSE to build a hydrogen network. It just said no for now because there was no money in it.
Trust me...
The moment that renewable, 'Green' energy technology progresses to the point that it is more economically profitable than fossil fuel...
In *that* moment you will see all of 'Big Energy' falling over themselves and foaming at the mouth trying to participate.
Until then, well... Frankly, they will stick with the proven, profitable technologies, such as fossil fuels.
It is not about 'saving the planet' to Business. It is about making a profit.
What we need to do is make progress in research into these technologies so that the goal of 'saving the planet' and 'profit' coincide.
But, one shouldn't do that by the government's methods, that of regulation and taxation. Those methods only depress the economy, which reduces the money available for research.

Are you coming from Texas?

Another statement That is as it should be. ????
In the free World we elect representants to govern us.
For instance I have not elected that ExxonMobil are doing big business with Russia.

"One shouldn't do that by the government's methods, that of regulation and taxation. Those methods only depress the economy, which reduces the money available for research."
Utter nonsense. Perhaps in the US but not in the rest of World!
ID: 1655074 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1655125 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 20:47:59 UTC - in response to Message 1655074.  

"We're a commercial business - we're not going to build a hydrogen network just for the good of mankind

Thats very true:)
When commercial business are ruling the World there will be no change to save the planet!
Now commercial business have a lot power to do what they like.
More Power than state governments!

How did that happen?

That is as it should be.

'Commercial business' did not totally REFUSE to build a hydrogen network. It just said no for now because there was no money in it.
Trust me...
The moment that renewable, 'Green' energy technology progresses to the point that it is more economically profitable than fossil fuel...
In *that* moment you will see all of 'Big Energy' falling over themselves and foaming at the mouth trying to participate.
Until then, well... Frankly, they will stick with the proven, profitable technologies, such as fossil fuels.
It is not about 'saving the planet' to Business. It is about making a profit.
What we need to do is make progress in research into these technologies so that the goal of 'saving the planet' and 'profit' coincide.
But, one shouldn't do that by the government's methods, that of regulation and taxation. Those methods only depress the economy, which reduces the money available for research.

Are you coming from Texas?

Another statement That is as it should be. ????
In the free World we elect representants to govern us.
For instance I have not elected that ExxonMobil are doing big business with Russia.

"One shouldn't do that by the government's methods, that of regulation and taxation. Those methods only depress the economy, which reduces the money available for research."
Utter nonsense. Perhaps in the US but not in the rest of World!


Yes, I am from Texas.

The proper function of government is the same, no matter where one is located.

The proper function of government is NOT to solve people's problems.

The proper function of government is TO, under STRICT limits on its power, provide a minimal framework under which people can solve their OWN problems.

Government is not functioning properly in Europe, or the rest of the World.

Government is not functioning properly in the Federal Government of the USA.

Government is not functioning properly even in Texas, due to the Federal Government.

The initial, Federal Government in the USA was rather close to functioning properly. However, this did not last. From the moment George Washington was sworn into his first term as US President, the assault of Power Creep began, and the US Federal Government, slowly at first, faster and faster as time went on, started accumulating improper levels of power.

All three branches did so from day 1. The Judicial branch, the Legislative branch, and the Executive branch ALL accumulated powers, in cooperation with each other, not granted to them by the Constitution therefore retained (under the Constitution) by the States and the People).

Now then, I am not saying that the US Constitution applies to everyone. Far from it. But I am saying that the principles outlined in the US Constitution do (with the obvious exception of the slavery shiat which was that document's main failing).


Benjamin Franklin wrote:
He governs best who governs least.


Nowadays, the US Federal Government has turned into quite a craphole.

We have the Democrat Party (Pro-worker (leftist) Authoritarian Socialists) and the Republican Party (Pro-business (rightist) Authoritarian Socialists) both making a terrible mess of things.

Remember one of these groups is not the opposite of the other. Both are Authoritarian Socialists and are much the same with pretty much the only difference being their 'favored, protected class'. Both of these groups methods are the same... namely to use the Police Power of the Government to steal wealth from the other groups in the nation and give it to their favored, protected class as a bribe to continue to be elected.

From my experience and knowledge of the politics in other nations, it is pretty much the same there. Different groups, same methods.

Perhaps it is time for what Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independance and 3rd President of the US had in mind.

the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

-- excerpt from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith dated Nov. 13, 1787

http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100

Full text of letter:

http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0348

janneseti wrote:
For instance I have not elected that ExxonMobil are doing big business with Russia.


Why would you have a say in this?

ExxonMobil is a US Multinational Corporation incorporated in New Jersey.

Are you a US Citizen?
Are you a Russian Citizen?
Are you a shareholder in ExxonMobil?

If the answer to these 3 questions is no, then you don't have any say on the matter.

One of the few truths the current US President (Obama) has stated in his several 'State of the Union' addresses is the following:

“no bailouts, no handouts, and no cop outs.”


This got a bipartisan standing ovation during his speech.

The Democrats applauded 'no bailouts' -- no corporate bailouts.

The Republicans applauded 'no handouts' -- no handouts to workers.

And about everyone applauded 'no cop outs' -- no cop outs on badly needed reform (of course different people had different ideas on what that reform would be).

For a fuller description of that statement, I refer you to the following URL:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/289778/no-more-bipartisan-bailouts-michael-tanner

But I will quote one paragraph of that article that describes part of what I am talking about:

Michael Tanner wrote:
Both liberals and conservatives often succumb to a narrative that pits big government against big business. No doubt many of big government’s tax and regulatory policies do make it more difficult for businesses to expand and hire people. But just as often, big business and big government are all too happy to work hand in hand to thwart the free market. Confusing support for free markets with support for the corporate agenda is a bipartisan failing. In a free market, for example, corporations compete against one another on their merits. Government doesn’t pick winners and losers or prefer one type of industry over another.


As a Libertarian Minarchist, I do believe that some level of Government is necessary, some level of Taxation is necessary, and some level of Regulation is necessary. But in all three cases, it should be as small as is possible.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1655125 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 . . . 54 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.