Sorry to jump the thread here; not sure if dubious is the word either, but pretty amateur and more fear mongering with no supporting data.

First, the suggestion that no more reactors should be built because people use them to aid in production of nuclear weapons. Well kids, that ship has already sailed: In June 2014, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that nine nations (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) possessed approx. 16,300 nuclear weapons in total. So someone builds one or 10 more? Yeah, that will matter. Someone needs to read up on the concept of deterrence.

When talking about waste: "Germany has literally tons of the stuff just laying around" - well, that's just horseshit.

Regarding accidents and number of deaths due to nuclear reactors: "devastating disasters every 30 years" - devastating? Come on, people died, but compared to other sources of energy, according to the WHO, it is by far the safest. Consider:

Energy Source Mortality Rates; Deaths/yr/TWh

Coal - world average, 161
Coal - China, 278
Coal - USA, 15
Oil - 36
Natural Gas - 4
Biofuel/Biomass - 12
Peat - 12
Solar/rooftop - 0.44-0.83
Wind - 0.15
Hydro - world, 0.10
Hydro - world*, 1.4
Nuclear - 0.04

* Includes the 170,000 deaths from the failure of the Banquao Reservoir Dam in China in 1975

So, if not dubious, certainly cheap and pedantic.

The corn has already been harvested. This process is just cleaning up the stalks and leaves. This is all ground up and then put in piles to ferment.

That's what "silage" is. It's usually used as a livestock food for farms over the winter. But can also be used for the creation of biofuel. Check out the Wikipedia page.

IF it were biofuel made from hemp or some biomass that is carbon neutral.. yes, it would be eco-friendly.

>> ^kulpims:

burning a few gallons of fuel per minute just to pick up one log? yeah, very environment friendly

This response proves you didn't even read the page that you are using to "debunk" the video. It doesn't address this video. This page, which contains one paragraph and a broken link to a video, is the one addressing it:

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Again, you present yourself as the voice of chicken little, as your perpetrate another myth upon the overpopulation myth, which is the myth of peak oil. We are not in danger of running out of oil anytime soon; in fact, because of new technology and methods, such as the fracking boom, our domestic energy production is expected to rise significantly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oil-peter-orszag.html

Since 1976 our proven oil reserves are double from where they started, and new reserves are being found continuously:

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/25/petrobras-confirms-tupi-field-could-hold-8-billion-barrels

http://www.albawaba.com/iran-discovers-huge-oil-field-report-415465

There is also evidence that oil fields are refilling:

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

The fact is that there is an oil boom in the western hemisphere:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html

The coal oil sands in Canada alone are estimated to hold 175 billion barrels of oil. What I find interesting hpqp, as you do another hit and run, is that you have all the faith in the world that science will solve all of our problems, except when it comes to your favorite doomsday hypothesis.

As I have already proven, we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is in the inequity of man and in the inefficient and wasteful distribution. We lose over 1/3 of the food we produce to waste. We have more than enough fuel to supply our agriculture, and the research shows that having smaller and more energy efficient farms will increase yields even further, and not significantly impact biodiversity.


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY


The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.
That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

>> ^shinyblurry:

You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY



The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.

That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

@coolhund, just to address a few points, 'cos this is really getting tiresome.

1. There is a scientific consensus. This cannot be argued. That doesn't necessarily mean that the consensus is right, but it does mean that those who oppose the consensus must provide a better model. As @Sotto_Voce said, I don't have to debunk 450 papers. They have to debunk all the others.

2. I agree that name calling isn't helpful, but the content of the article is still sound. It's kinda hypocritical to criticise that article for name calling and then call the IPCC a "religion" and talk about "Al Gore bullshit".

3. I don't agree that biofuel is a good solution either, but that's completely irrelevant to whether AGW is happening.

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.

How about you start by debunking the thousands of studies supporting anthropogenic climate change? More importantly, what makes you think those 450+ studies are more reliable than the pro-climate change studies? Usually, when I see a debate with a vast majority of scientists on one side and a tiny minority on the other, I believe the majority. This isn't a perfect heuristic, but it's a pretty good one. Do you have any good reason to believe the heuristic fails in this instance? What is it that has convinced you the majority is wrong?

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!".

What? This is the stupidest analogy ever. Saying "Look at all this peer reviewed scientific research" is somehow equivalent to "God told me so"?

And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

This is only true if atheists in church are usually dismissed using careful peer-reviewed scientific research, along the lines of this or this.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

And of course there's no money at all to be made in debunking climate change. Dude, the oil industry pumps millions of dollars into research that criticizes the consensus. After the last IPCC report came out, the American Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon) offered $10,000 to anyone who published an article criticizing the report. If you think money is skewing incentives on the pro-AGW side, why don't you apply the same standards to the denialist side?

Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC).

Care to point out where ChaosEngine made an old and already debunked argument? And just because science is falsifiable doesn't mean that science can never be settled on an issue. The debate about the chemical composition of the sun is over. That doesn't mean that those claims are not falsifiable.

I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

I know. Very sad. Let me play you the world's saddest song on the world's tiniest violin. Especially after you called ChaosEngine ignorant and stupid and then complained about how sad rhetoric like "Christy Crocks" is.

That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue... Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then.

Climate science is not a science that is known well be humankind, but it is apparently known well by coolhund-kind. Please tell us how you came up with this forecast, and why you think it is more reliable than the forecasts of, you know, actual experts.

The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW.

True, but irrelevant, since there is AGW.

You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life.

OK, so the thousands of climate scientists who claim to believe in AGW are lying to keep their jobs. Confusingly, a number of global warming skeptics are able to keep their jobs without pretending to believe in AGW. Someone needs to figure out how they managed to beat the corrupt system. Maybe they have compromising pictures of Al Gore?

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

What a pointless digression. America is not the only country in the world where scientists believe in AGW. The national science academy in Germany, your paragon for a skeptical country, has also endorsed the IPCC report. So whether or not Americans are easy to fool is completely irrelevant here. Incidentally, 59% of German people believe that global warming is due to human activity. Only 49% of Americans believe this. So maybe you're right -- Americans are easy to fool. You're just wrong about who's fooling them.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^coolhund:

The consensus is non-existent. There are hundreds of scientists who oppose it. There are over 450 studies which oppose it.
There might be hundreds of scientists and 450 studies that oppose it, but there are thousands of scientists and countless studies for it.
There's no consensus? yeah, right....
>> ^coolhund:
Oh and just btw: A consensus doesnt mean anything, because physics are not democracy, as Einstein said very nicely once:
"If I was wrong, one would be enough."
This is correct, and if Einstein was wrong, one good parsimonious hypothesis backed by experimental evidence would absolutely prove him wrong. Same with AGW.
But every competing hypothesis describes the reality less accurately.

>> ^coolhund:
This AGW hype is no science. As climate scientist and former IPCC lead author Prof. John Christy of UAH put straight:
For example, we were told by the IPCC that „milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4).
After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, „Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-
change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html)
The non-falsifiable hypotheses works this way, “„whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would „falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis' fundamental prediction is „anything may happen.”

The full quote is "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. "
The potential effects of climate change are certainly an unknown. The fact that it is happening? not so much. And Christys skpeticism has been pretty soundly debunked, although at least he's one of the few that's actually qualified to speak on the matter.
You still haven't addressed my other point about why you believe the scientific community is making this up.


And that doesnt change a thing.

Of course, nobody is denying that climate change isnt happening, because climate has always changed.

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!". That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue. Again: Climate science doesnt even know properly how clouds are created. And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

This is so thick of an political and economical part of our society already, that, even if you had 100% undeniable facts, people would still not believe you. Its sad that youre one of them. Again: This is not science anymore. Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC). I dont know why you are so ignorant and and stupid to support a new religion, but it makes me very sad every time I am confronted with so much ignorance. I know this last part has nothing to do with the issue, its just my own feelings, since ignorance has been the sole cause of problems on this earth. I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then. I am seriously excited.

Oh yeah about your last link:
It proves that you dont understand how things work: The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW. Thats like me putting up an organization that claims that computers, like they are right now, kill us all and I'm getting paid by several governments to say that. I have enough money to buy people and studies that support my claims. But not only that, my idea is that good, I will get support from the economy, because my view is opening MANY new ways to make new profit, because many things will have to change. I will also get the mass media on my side, because being a friend of the bad computers that kill cant be good. People who criticize my views will be bad people and part of the bad computer industry that only wants money. Perfect propaganda material.

However, its prolly funny for you (worth to ignore I mean) to see that the bad oil companies are part of the climate change lobbies. They make lots of money off the AGW hype too. The high energy prices alone, that are part caused by this hype, lets them laugh themselves into sleep every night.

As I said, the system is far more complicated than the simple picture you posted there. And thats why it is so easy to keep the true agenda hidden. And no, its no conspiracy. Its the way this system works. You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life. No more need to scrounge up supporters every month to get your fundings for your studies. Its what everyone wants. And if youre one of those guys who actually believes in AGW, which is quite common these days due to Al Gores indoctrination movie and the mass media following it, its even more straight forward.

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

@RedSky

It's not that speculative activity has "nothing" to do with supply and demand. Of course it does. I'm saying that once you get past that initial set of contracts between the initial speculator and the farmer/mill/bread company/whatever, you get further and further away from supply and demand as a factor. You get people who are betting on price swings for profit rather than someone actually providing a service. The video did a pretty good job of illustrating the see-saw effect this has on markets, which makes prices unstable.

This see-saw effect causes severe and sudden price spikes and dips as people pile on short sales or speculative buying. The point is, if the price for a good increases 71% in a short period of time without extreme supply issues, it's likely a speculative effect. Yes, the video could have done a better job of explaining why biofuels, certain supply shortages, etc, don't account for nearly all of the price increase, but I've heard that broken down elsewhere. I'll try to find a source.

Furthermore, large US investment banks have convinced sovereign wealth funds (think Saudi royal money type funds) to invest in US commodities markets in recent years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102462.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/24/us-commodities-sovereignwealth-idUSTRE51N28Z20090224

This is what these huge piles of money do to protect themselves. More recently, investors bought huge piles of Swiss Francs because it was the world's most stable currency. However, since such huge investment in the currency suddenly increased the value of the Franc, it caused Swiss exports to become more expensive. This started to destabilize their economy, as producers were having trouble keeping contracts with their buyers. So, the Swiss central bank started manipulating their currency value by offering to buy unlimited amounts of any foreign currency. They succeeded in dropping the Franc's value by around 10%. None of this activity had anything to do with supply or demand of Swiss goods...or goods anywhere for that matter. It was simply massive amounts of investment from a crowd mentality.

Same thing goes for the price of gold. It's just a giant hedge against inflation and/or price spikes in other markets...so you get these accumulations of money in "safe" areas, and that's how you get massive overvaluation of various goods and commodities (bubbles).

It's all due to the level of complexity. "Speculative activity" is a stabilizer when the number of speculators is low, but it has a destabilizing effect as the number of speculators increases.

I don't understand the methodology. OK, a dog requires 43m^2 dedicated to farming / ranching to sustain. Got it. How on earth is that twice as much as a land cruiser? What kind of ridiculous biofuel are they imagining which can construct and fuel a land cruiser while using 21.5m^2? Heck, I'd be impressed if you could get 2 gallons of ethanol out of 21.5m^2 in one year.

The reporting....
"Some weird metal that you have to get"..."Extracting oxygen from electricity"... Wow.

Anyway. New way to burn fossil fuels. Great, if it's more efficient, but not revolutionary. Need to figure out how to produce enough biofuel for these, and I suspect that's going to be quite a hurdle. Fossil fuels built up over millions of years and we will have mostly used them all up in about 200 years from when we started. That's a LOT of biomass per year for energy production.

>> ^Stormsinger:
He said it could run on solar power, for Pete's sake! This just screams con-artist to me.

That looked like a piss-poor editing job on 60 Minutes' part. He was clearly about to continue on with a qualification of some sort like "if you used solar power to hydrolyze water into hydrogen and fed that into the fuel cell".

I think the real thing they gloss over here is that it produces CO2 emissions. They were comparing it to the pathetic amount of power they got from solar, but solar doesn't require any fuel, nor does it produce CO2.

If it's a big improvement over the efficiency of power plants, it's still a huge deal, and could reduce CO2 emissions via improved efficiency, but it's not a silver bullet.

A silver bullet would be something like cold fusion, zero point energy, some sort of direct matter-to-energy converter, or just a form of algae that produces a ridiculous volume of biofuel.

I'm assuming he's talking about the Haber process.
As mentioned on the wikipedia page, it sustains one third of the world's population. the "political choice" our evil overlords have made seems less like a choice and more like absolute common sense.

Also, if there is enough food in the world to feed everyone, why is he even targeting the production of food, and not the distribution?

Also, if the world's resources are not enough to feed everyone at an American diet (fair enough, portion sizes and packaging have exploded in recent decades afaik), is it then big enough to sustain a wider adoption of small, inefficient 3rd world-style farming?

But I do agree that biofuels made from food is an idiotic idea.

sounds similar to

http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23009/

....

and then, there is this advancement from yet another company
http://www.zymetis.com/
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22307/
...

and, to put it all in perspective, there is this from barely two years ago!
http://www.onethread.org/arise/?p=73

"In a recent article, “The Price of Biofuels“, David Rotman predicts that “significant technological breakthroughs” will be necessary to reach a goal in the United States of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuel by 2030. A professor of chemical engineering and biochemistry at Caltech, Fraces Arnold, says there are formidable barriers to the development of new biofuels:

“The bottom line is that you’re going to have to make fuel cheap. We can all make a little bit of something. But you have to make a lot of it, and you have got to make it cheaply. The problem is so huge that your technology has got to scale up.”

Three major challenges cited in converting biomass to biofuel include:
a.Optimizing yield, quality, and transportation of biomass
b.Improving the process of developing sugars from biomass
c.Creating highly efficient biological pathways to convert sugars into biofuel


Professor Gregory Stephanopoulos of MIT believes that a systems approach will likely be required to solve the multidimensional issues associated with creating an inexpensive biofuel generation process; an anticipated solution is a hybrid procedure that incorporates advances in both chemistry and biology.
-------

Well, I guess they solved those problems pretty quick.

stupid education and science, making our health better by helping us be more compatible with our environment.

understanding how to identify a problem, seeing that there is a solution and then implementing the solution.... what is this country becoming? Comm-rape-ulist ChiRussia? BURY YER GUNS AND YER COMBUSTION ENGINES!! THEY TOOK YER FUEL!!! TUK ER!!! DEMOCRATS ARE RUINING EVERYTHING RABBLE RABBLE

Just in Summary:

1) The ice caps that ARE melting: aren't - God promised they wouldn't.

2) There was more carbon in the atmosphere in the time of the dinosaurs.
* the dinosaurs which didn't exist because of the creationist age of the earth
* the ice caps - that didn't exist at that time because they were melted.
* coastal city's are built on coastlines that were underwater in the time of dinosaurs.

3) Coal miners lost their jobs because they work in a polluting industry.
* Miners today can be building turbines or farming biofuel tomorrow.
* A thousand Miners jobs compared to millions of people's homes, food, and lives. It's a small price.