Man Made Global Warming

[bwilson4web]

Source:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...tions-fall-far-short-in-plans-to-curb-warming

The report called efforts by the United States, the European Union, Germany and Japan “insufficient” and more in line with global warming of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century.

The world has already warmed 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since that time, so these countries are on track to make the world 1.9 degrees Celsius (3.4 degrees
Fahrenheit) warmer than now.

While the U.S. official emissions pledge is almost sufficient, the overall grade “reflects that Biden hasn’t got his policies in place,” said Hare. The report gave U.S. financial aid commitments the worst grade possible.
. . .
Read more of AP’s climate coverage at http://www.apnews.com/Climate​

We really need to look at every nation on planet earth:

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye - Matthew 7:5​

Playing the "blame game" on another nation distracts from what we can do.

Bob Wilson

 

[R P]

During Trump's term, the US reduced emissions more than any other major country.
https://capitalresearch.org/article...on-emissionswithout-the-paris-climate-accord/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...7LZqPGAxTKtUE68S2rWkCsF65c0qUuJ3h59aD7jBkShgQ

That happened primarily because of the shift from coal fired electricity to nat gas. This was helped by fracking which dramatically lowered the price of NG making it more feasible for the transition away from coal. Whether that continues remains to be seen with the current administration's position on fracking and fossil fuel production. As a result, we have already seen a huge jump recently in the price of NG.


And it continues to go up...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...eap-natural-gas-ends-as-prices-surge-by-1-000

Meanwhile as we know China and other major polluters continue to pollute as they please. It is not a blame game, but facing the reality that the US can't do it alone. And we are also battling against a long term climate change trend towards a warmer earth. Even if we stop all man made emissions, am not sure it will make much difference in the long run. The best solution is do our best to stop air pollution and excessive greenhouse gas emissions, but also adapt and prepare for the inevitable.

 

[bwilson4web]

Step 1, review the source:
https://climateactiontracker.org

Is only China a problem?

So looking at the 'beam' in ours:



So let's look at another country, closer to home:


The difference is I say it is a global problem and not limited to just one country. There is no magic bullet:

And a lot of work for those interested in solving the problem(s).

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

Playing the "blame game" on another nation distracts from what we can do.

At this point, your dedication to lying about what's being said is just malignant. Or it's maybe it's just something defective in your worldview.

Nobody is blaming China. It's just "Hmm. China's emissions are rapidly increasing while we should continue to reduce our emissions. It would be great if this trend China was reversed."

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye - Matthew 7:5

Maybe you should pull the planks out of both of your eyes and read what's actually being said. lol. Neither me nor RP are doing anything remotely close to where this is applicable.

Is only China a problem?

Again, nobody is saying this. The concern is that China's emission trends are still drastically increasing while others are decreasing. Pointing this out doesn't mean others should do less.

This is especially funny to me because they are basing the projects on the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook, which has hilariously been incorrect every single year since I've been following it (almost a decade). Virtually anyone who has ever paid attention to the US energy industry knows this. It's clear that whatever source this is isn't using any serious market analysis, so I rank it garbage. It's clear that they just assume that policy is what drives things. The US could literally remove almost all of the climate policies today and the market trend would still be away from fossil fuels and towards renewables.

The difference is I say it is a global problem and not limited to just one country. There is no magic bullet:

ah. so you didn't actually read what RP wrote.

 

[bwilson4web]

So reading comprehension is not your strong suit:

your dedication to lying

Actually your posting history shows an OCD compulsion about China:

nobody is saying this.

It is a global problem not just a favorite right-wing meme to blame China. Russia plays its part too.

This matches my understanding of how our species should address man-made global warming:

The US could literally remove almost all of the climate policies today and the market trend would still be away from fossil fuels and towards renewables.

Solve the economic problem with cost-effective renewables and the problem is solved. But posting a 'one trick pony', China coal, suggests not understanding the problem.

At one time, I followed https://skepticalscience.com not because I needed convincing about man-made global warming. I was interested in understanding folks like you who use poor arguments to distract from a global problem. They have an excellent course on identification of your claims.

The irony is I drive an EV for economic reasons. Man-made global warming is a given since the 1960 and the earliest reports of Venus runaway planet warming from greenhouse gas. Historically, it dates back to:

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature.​

It must be terribly frustrating to realize your blame China coal is so ineffective. I'm into effective solutions. But given this:

You are not helping. In contrast, my 401K is in stock of the leading company in making renewable energy a reality:

• Hornsdale Power Reserve
• Home solar shingles and power storage
• Advanced battery technology
• Advanced EV transportation

Yes, it is Elon Musk's Tesla. Strange how you tip toe around the economic solution to pursue a silly 'China coal' posting history.

Bob Wilson

 

[bwilson4web]

It is a good thing we can assume everyone is posting on the up-and-up. Sometimes, we find corporation have been bad actors:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/exxon-mobil-climate-manchin-lobbying-infrastructure.html

. . .Carter wanted to know what the company stood for behind the scenes, and get Exxon employees to talk about the ways they’ve twisted science and politics in order to stay in business.

Posing as a recruitment consultant, Carter lured two men who’d worked as Big Oil lobbyists into Zoom meetings. Then he pressed record. It’s eerie to see the footage Lawrence obtained. We see these lobbyists admit to political maneuverings both basic and shocking: “Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes.” Over hours of conversation, the lobbyists reveal that even a position that seems environmentally friendly—like Exxon’s support of a “carbon tax”—might be nothing more than a stalling tactic; as Carter puts it, “In this way, Exxon can claim to be for action on climate change while opposing regulations proposed by the Biden administration that would actually achieve near-term cuts to greenhouse gases.”
. . .​

Trying to distract by blaming 'China coal' is a symptom. Fortunately, a decade of similar posting habits has raised our 'spider sense' that maybe not every poster has a clue. Playing the "blame game" on a single source charitably suggests a simple mind but we should not rule out another Exxon dirty trick.

Solve the economics of renewable energy and CO{2} from fossil fuels will fall.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

It is a global problem not just a favorite right-wing meme to blame China. Russia plays its part too.

It must be terribly frustrating to realize your blame China coal is so ineffective. I'm into effective solutions. But given this:

How can you read what anyone else has been saying and come to the conclusion that anyone is solely blaming China for climate change? It is not some right wing meme to focus on Chinese emission trends. China is the top emitter and they emit twice as much as the next country (USA). There is also no clear end to the increase of emissions trend, unlike many of the top emitters. They also currently provide almost all of the foreign spending on coal.

Even the Endcoal.com people call out China at the end of their coal tracking tables:

(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...czJCrdaR-vYkJ0DzztSsCJXuKw/edit#gid=822738567)
Is this some evil distraction? Do you want me to start looking up articles from left wing media sites publishing articles about being concerned with China's emissions? Seriously.

Actually your posting history shows an OCD compulsion about China:

I don't know Bob, why are you so obsessed with telling people to not focus on China's emission trends when they clearly are the top emitter and continue to show increasing trends?

Solve the economic problem with cost-effective renewables and the problem is solved. But posting a 'one trick pony', China coal, suggests not understanding the problem.

Yes, it is Elon Musk's Tesla. Strange how you tip toe around the economic solution to pursue a silly 'China coal' posting history.

lol. China essentially has a command and control economy. The government has a much larger say over what happens in the market rather than competition. The whole time I have been saying that the US is reducing emissions because of economic pressure from renewables. How on earth am I 'tip toeing' around economics? Talk about not understanding the problem. lol

At one time, I followed https://skepticalscience.com not because I needed convincing about man-made global warming. I was interested in understanding folks like you who use poor arguments to distract from a global problem. They have an excellent course on identification of your claims.

lol. Skeptical science is not some great resource. I am by no means a climate skeptic, but I can easily tell that half the posts were not actually seriously trying to address any claims. It's essentially a peanut gallery. It bothers me because it is detrimental to teach nonsense reasoning to children. If you want, I can show you examples, but I think you're too smug to consider how this is not a good resource.

Man-made global warming is a given since the 1960 and the earliest reports of Venus runaway planet warming from greenhouse gas. Historically, it dates back to:

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature.

So human caused climate change was known about since the 60s, yet environmentalists did everything they could to kill nuclear energy knowing that fossil fuel emissions were a major problem. Huh. Strange behavior.

I drive an EV for purely economic reasons but also look at my environmentally virtuous investments.

No, the environment is obviously a primary driving factor for why you bought a tesla and a I3.

Irrelevant screeching about Exxon Mobile

Uh. Yes, and?

'China coal' is a symptom.

A symptom of what? Understanding what is going on? China is currently uses the most coal and they provide the most public financing for coal and you think bringing this up is distracting from addressing climate change. What mental gymnastics is necessary to think this way?

>Climate change is a global problem, but you can't talk about how China's coal use disproportionately impacts the globe.
Climate change is a global problem right? Well, that would essentially require every nation to generally move in the same direction, where that direction is use less coal. So far, many of the world's top polluters are actively moving away from coal. China is not and China is also dragging other nations with it with their public funding. Pointing this out isn't "blaming" China. It's just pointing out that China is currently the biggest force continuing the use of coal. When China stops doing this, some other nation will be the biggest concern when it comes to coal.

Fortunately, a decade of similar posting habits has raised our 'spider sense' that maybe not every poster has a clue.

So, you aren't responding to what I'm actually saying, but what you think I'm saying. Brilliant.

 

[bwilson4web]

Your fantasies are not my problem ... "full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." Of more inport:

• https://www.reuters.com/world/china...e-2-bln-vaccine-doses-by-year-end-2021-09-21/ - "In climate pledge, Xi says China will not build new coal-fired power projects abroad"
  
• https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...action-climate-change-pandemic-united-nations - "Biden tries to reassure allies and urges action on climate change, pandemic at U.N."

As for our 2019 Std Rng Plus Model 3:

• $2.75 / 100 miles at home
  • ~1/3d miles are free around Huntsville
• $3.00 / 100 miles on highway staying overnight at free breakfast and charging motel
• $3.50 / 100 miles on highway direct

As recently posted in the efficiency thread:

• 2 yrs 6 months, 53,038 mi
• ~4.4 kWh/mi
• 22.9 kWh/100 mi (EPA rated 25 kWh/100 mi)

I'm already on my second set of tires; no oil changes; no brake jobs, and; still beats everyone at a light. The best car you've never owned.

Bob Wilson

 

[R P]

Bob, you started the thread about man made global warming. And then you deflect away from discussion of the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, China, which continues to increase its coal usage. If you want a meaningful discussion, stop attacking those of us who are concerned about this, and how perhaps the world should deal with China on changing that trajectory. Why did you start this thread if you don't want an honest discussion of the real issue.

Most major countries, incl the US, have and are taking action to curb emissions, with or without the Paris Accord. But not China, the biggest emitter. Shouldn't that be the main focus of this discussion?

 

[bwilson4web]

. . . an honest discussion . . .

Discuss what we, the USA can do, and we'll sing in harmony. But treating China as the only source worth discussing, we'll disagree.

We have one political party, the Republicans who deny climate change and any USA efforts to solve our own problems. So I go back to:

Matthew 7:5 -
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.​

I'm reminded of the previous president who blamed COVID-19 on the Chinese while avoiding effective pandemic, public health measures. Even today, COVID-19 continues to kill +1,000 per day with the strongest Trump supporting States now infecting the vaccinated with breakthrough infections. Not to change the subject to point out the obvious flaw of "China did (does) it."

Democratic leaders are already working with China to get them redirected away from coal. Our own Elon Musk is already moving us towards both solar power and grid power storage. There are effective actions that we, at least the USA citizens, can have an effect. Since none of us are Chinese citizens, complaining has no effect except to block effective carbon reduction actions.

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-would-aristotle-do/201207/stop-playing-the-blame-game

One of the most destructive human pastimes is playing the blame game. It has been responsible for mass casualties of war, regrettable acts of road rage, and on a broad interpersonal level (social, familial and work-related), a considerable amount of human frustration and unhappiness. The blame game consists of blaming another person for an event or state of affairs thought to be undesirable, and persisting in it instead of proactively making changes that ameliorate the situation. The drive shaft of this game is a series of four irrational beliefs:

1. If something has gone wrong (or is not the way it should be), then someone other than myself must be identified and blamed for causing the situation.
2. This person/s’ malfeasance diminishes the respect he/she deserves as a person.
3. So, it is permissible (and only fitting) to treat this person/s in ways he/she deserves to be treated such as ignoring, name-calling, and in extreme cases, physical assault.
4. I must not accept any significant degree of responsibility for the situation inasmuch as to do so would be to admit that I am myself also diminished as a person, and therefore deserving of the same disapprobation and negative treatment.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

Your fantasies are not my problem ... "full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." Of more inport:

• https://www.reuters.com/world/china...e-2-bln-vaccine-doses-by-year-end-2021-09-21/ - "In climate pledge, Xi says China will not build new coal-fired power projects abroad"
  
• https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...action-climate-change-pandemic-united-nations - "Biden tries to reassure allies and urges action on climate change, pandemic at U.N."

Bob Wilson

Talk is cheap. When there is clear evidence that China is reducing their emissions, I will stop criticizing them and move on to whatever other nation becomes the largest problem in not reducing emissions.

 

[SouthernDude]

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-would-aristotle-do/201207/stop-playing-the-blame-game

One of the most destructive human pastimes is playing the blame game. It has been responsible for mass casualties of war, regrettable acts of road rage, and on a broad interpersonal level (social, familial and work-related), a considerable amount of human frustration and unhappiness. The blame game consists of blaming another person for an event or state of affairs thought to be undesirable, and persisting in it instead of proactively making changes that ameliorate the situation. The drive shaft of this game is a series of four irrational beliefs:

1. If something has gone wrong (or is not the way it should be), then someone other than myself must be identified and blamed for causing the situation.
2. This person/s’ malfeasance diminishes the respect he/she deserves as a person.
3. So, it is permissible (and only fitting) to treat this person/s in ways he/she deserves to be treated such as ignoring, name-calling, and in extreme cases, physical assault.
4. I must not accept any significant degree of responsibility for the situation inasmuch as to do so would be to admit that I am myself also diminished as a person, and therefore deserving of the same disapprobation and negative treatment.

The only person playing the blame game here is you.

We have one political party, the Republicans who deny climate change and any USA efforts to solve our own problems.

You are literally laying the blame solely on the Republicans for the state of US emissions and apparent lack of action on climate change in the US.

You completely ignore the fact that hordes of environmentalists and environmental NGOs - none of which are or were remotely Republican supporting people or groups - did everything they could since the 60s to today to kill the nuclear industry - even though they knew the use of fossil fuels was creating a climate crisis and that nuclear was an effective way to fight against it. In fact, I would argue that this action from the environmentalists in the past is largely responsible for the US's reliance on coal today, which is thankfully dwindling. This is literally worse than some Repbulicans denying climate change today. Talk about a log in the eye of non-Republicans.

Secondly, many of the largest subsidies for renewables were initially signed in by Republican presidents - eg the production tax credit for wind and ITC for solar. This is hardly nothing.

Are their Republicans who deny the problems with climate change? Yes, absolutely. But That doesn't mean the Democrats and their supporters are from perfect on this either.

What you are doing is pure projection. Accuse your enemies of what you yourself are doing. Literally an Alinskyite tactic. You are accusing us of playing the blame game when it is actually you. This kind of crap is why progressives are such dishonest people.

 

[bwilson4web]

Let's edit this:

What you are doing . . .

is pure [and accurate rjw ] projection. Accuse your enemies [of truth and accuracy rjw] of what you yourself are doing. Literally an Alinskyite tactic. You are accusing us [no just you raw] of playing the blame game when it is actually you [reporting facts and data rjw]. This kind of crap [claims raw] is why progressives [are having to deal rjw] such dishonest people.​

There that is better and accurate.

We both know who is lying: FOX, Republicans, and the 'conservatives.' Worse, your China fixation is an obvious and especially weak attempt to distract from what we in the USA can do. It reminds me of Trump's "China virus" claims that tried to distract from his utter COVID-19 failures.

So bringing factual information to the thread:


I like the trends:


Bob Wilson

 

[R P]

The fact remains that under Trump, the US reduced emissions more than the other major countries, with his energy policies, primarily fracking and nat gas. And we know (eg EU and UK) that we can't depend just on solar and wind. If nat gas is killed, as Biden and the Dems have promised, the US could be in trouble, too.

 

[SouthernDude]

Let's edit this:
is pure [and accurate rjw ] projection. Accuse your enemies [of truth and accuracy rjw] of what you yourself are doing. Literally an Alinskyite tactic. You are accusing us [no just you raw] of playing the blame game when it is actually you [reporting facts and data rjw]. This kind of crap [claims raw] is why progressives [are having to deal rjw] such dishonest people.
There that is better and accurate.

lol

We both know who is lying: FOX, Republicans, and the 'conservatives.'

Cool. Now address all the anti-nuclear environmentalists and media groups who have been working since the 60s to destroy nuclear energy while knowing that climate change from fossil fuel use was an issue since the 60s. Why are they above criticism? Why do you avoid this?

Worse, your China fixation is an obvious and especially weak attempt to distract from what we in the USA can do

>Climate change is a global problem, but discussing any emission trends in any nation that isn't the US is a distraction.
How does that even make sense? It doesn't. You have no real answer on what to do if China doesn't actually start reducing emissions, so you call it a distraction to avoid having to give an answer for it.

So bringing factual information to the thread:

I like the trends:

Oh. The trend where renewables are now cheaper than coal in the US so they are replacing coal? Yeah. This actually helps prove the point that RP and I are making. The US is rapidly reducing emissions because renewables are much cheaper than coal. Zero conversations on the internet are going to make this trend go away nor will any different party being in charge change it either.

China, on the other hand, is currently building half of all the coal under construction globally and is practically funding the other half globally. Yes, China has recently announced they would stop the funding and I can almost guarantee that this is due to the type of criticism that you call a distraction.

 

[SouthernDude]

The fact remains that under Trump, the US reduced emissions more than the other major countries, with his energy policies, primarily fracking and nat gas. And we know (eg EU and UK) that we can't depend just on solar and wind. If nat gas is killed, as Biden and the Dems have promised, the US could be in trouble, too.

Meh. It really didn't matter who was president because renewables are already cheaper than coal and the market is going that way in the US anyways.

 

[bwilson4web]

address all the anti-nuclear environmentalists

They are right about light water reactors. The high temperatures and pressures and run-away operational characteristics are a disaster. My preference is for molten-salt reactors which operate at higher temperatures and lower pressure, ~3 bar. Best of all, they self-quench with passive cooling.

if China doesn't actually start reducing emissions

It is primarily a Chinese problem with both local pollution and import expenses. It is their problem.

My interest is in finding more cost effective, renewable and nuclear solutions.

Yes, China has recently announced they would stop the funding and I can almost guarantee that this is due to the type of criticism that you call a distraction.

Then take a victory lap. Xi's statement is no more foreign coal power plant projects. Then I'm reminded of:

Peking air pollution from coal has its own effect on their people, their medical costs, and their quality of life. It is only a matter of time before they notice building renewable technology sold to the USA might be used domestically.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

They are right about light water reactors.

lol. No they are/were not correct about light water reactors. Seriously. You mean to tell me that it is rational risk management to prevent light water reactors and instead select coal? That is what actually happened. The use of coal is largely responsible for climate change, emitted the majority particulate matter in the past, various toxic metal emissions too, requires far more destructive mining practices than any other energy source, and releases a crap load of radioactive waste (that gets conveniently ignored) when used normally. Light water reactors have to have a catastrophic failure, which is exceedingly rare to happen, for anything remotely comparable and the worst of what would be released decays in about a month. Other than that, the environmental impact is barely a rounding error when compared to coal. In short, the normal use of coal is orders of magnitude worse than even a catastrophic nuclear failure, which rarely even happens.

Anti-nuclear environmentalists know this yet still - today and in the past - try to shut down all forms nuclear - even the molten salt reactors you like. If the environmentalists in the 60s, 70s, & 80s rallied behind nuclear, then we wouldn't remotely close to as bad as the position we are in today. This is not deniable. Don't make excuses for these people.

My interest is in finding more cost effective, renewable and nuclear solutions.

If the goal is free market competition where renewables and nuclear win out, I'm all for that. Based on that approach, which group has been a bigger impedance? Republicans with renewables or environmentalists with nuclear? The correct answer is environmentalists with nuclear. There is no honest way to argue the other way around.

Then take a victory lap. Xi's statement is no more foreign coal power plant projects. Then I'm reminded of:

Peking air pollution from coal has its own effect on their people, their medical costs, and their quality of life. It is only a matter of time before they notice building renewable technology sold to the USA might be used domestically.

Whether or not China actually reduces funding for international coal plants has yet to be seen. Secondly, the government already knew how badly polluting the use of coal (no way they didn't observe what was figured out in the US) was before they built the amount of capacity they did, so I won't hold my breath to wait until they at least install baghouses.

 

[bwilson4web]

lol. No they are/were not correct about light water reactors. Seriously. You mean to tell me that it is rational risk management to prevent light water reactors and instead select coal?

Tossing in coal ignores the problems of light water reactors. Nuclear power can be generated without:

• high-pressure water
• high-temperature water
• oversized, one-of-a-kind designs

Small, 10-100 mW, liquid metal reactors made from common designs works for me. I don't mind if there are 2-3 reactor manufacturers but they should have standard designs that can be operated and feedback improve their design. Simply transport the reactors to the distribution sites and hopefully with waste heat reuse.

As for coal, a supercritical plant is less bad than the old thermal plants. More kWh with less coal ash and pollution. I'm glad Xi announced no support for exporting such plants in the future. Hopefully, domestic Chinese plants are all becoming supercritical designs.

Anti-nuclear environmentalists know this yet still - today and in the past - try to shut down all forms nuclear - even the molten salt reactors you like. . . . Don't make excuses for these people.

Good thing we don't have any 'straw man' environmentalists here. It was poor nuclear power decisions going with just light water, bloated, individual designed nuclear plants that was and remains a common problem.

There is no honest [REPUBLICAN rjw] way to argue the other way around.

Lazy thinking is never attractive regardless of political party. Actually I prefer Telsa/Elon's approach:

• solar power
• fast energy storage
• distributed systems

We're already seeing significant financial advantages with Elon's approaches.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

Tossing in coal ignores the problems of light water reactors.

lol. no. The whole point is that risks for using coal were still an order of magnitude worse than the risks for using light water reactors, yet all the mainstream environmental groups knowing this did everything they could to shut down all forms of nuclear in favor of coal anyways.

Small, 10-100 mW, liquid metal reactors made from common designs works for me. I don't mind if there are 2-3 reactor manufacturers but they should have standard designs that can be operated and feedback improve their design. Simply transport the reactors to the distribution sites and hopefully with waste heat reuse.

Sounds great. I hope Nuscale, which has a similar technology, will succeed. Too bad every major environmental group will fight against it tooth and nail.

Good thing we don't have any 'straw man' environmentalists here.

Every major environmental group is staunchly against all forms of nuclear energy. Sierra Club and Greenpeace are vehemently against nuclear. The default goal of the overwhelming majority of environmental groups is 100% wind, water, and solar. This is not some strawman, so stop making excuses for these people.

New Nuclear plants are basically illegal in 13 states largely due to the efforts of these groups. They have also lobbied to prevent the recycling of spent fuel rods and then lobbied to prevent the storage of these rods in the Yucca mountain facility despite it being proven that it wouldn't be harmful to store the waste there.

Lazy thinking is never attractive regardless of political party.

Pray tell, what is my lazy thought? Funniest part here is that you think you aren't a lazy thinker. lol