What does end of life mean? Are they not capable of producing electricity or something? It's like people who buy a new, more fuel efficient car thinking they're doing the envoronment a favor, but fail to realize that most of the environmental pollution from a car is from building it.

But... but... Republicans will say they look ugly under the ocean! Just like Trump said Wind mills are eyesores!

Back to the science of it. I wonder how much energy these oscillating plates can generate Wh? Their movements don't seem to be that much. Factor in the construction cost, damage/maintenance from salt water erosion, large fish bumping into it, the weather, etc. It might be feasible for small island communities/nations, but countries with a large landmass to coastal access ratio... its contribution to the overall energy sector might not be that significant. But every little bit of renewable, environmental risk-free energy helps, so, good stuff!

Kinda lost me when he claimed wind creates 11g CO² per kwh with no reference, calculations, or explanation.
Wind energy production is zero emission.
Are they including every gram produced by every step of construction and estimating a short lifespan, but not doing the same for nuclear, which takes exponentially more resources to build, run, fuel, store waste, and dismantle?
I also have a problem with him saying more expensive, higher profit natural gas plants have better prices because they're much HIGHER than nuclear prices per kwh.
He seems to ignore the spent fuel disposal/storage costs, which are significant in both cases, but while the natural gas plants don't pay for their waste (massive amounts of CO² and methane), nuclear has no choice.
Diablo canyon refurbishing was canned after Fukashima, because it's got all the same dangerous issues of being in an active earthquake/tsunami zone right on the coast with no way to shield itself from tsunamis. Before Fukashima, they totally planned to revamp and continue operations.
His levelized cost of electricity slide conveniently ignores the cost of environmental damage caused by fuel production/use.
Include all costs, coal is worst, followed by natural gas, then nuke, hydro, wind, and solar cheapest. Geothermal is great, but only in areas where it can be easily tapped, which are few and far between.

In short, his vast oversimplification and inconsistencies in what's included in his cost basis make his conclusions relatively meaningless, imo.

your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation.

I'm afraid I've never argued that, I can lead by agreeing whole heartedly that such a contention is false.

I merely pointed out that in a video about how 'capitalism didn't create the iphone', the authors own examples of innovations that lead to the iphone are all 100% from within an economy based on capitalism. My very first post stated clearly that it's not a purely capitalist system, but that it is noteworthy that not a one of the examples chosen by the author making his point came from a socialist country.

Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer innovations
Well, I could actually. If you want to deny the fact that Russia basically halted their computer R&D multiple times in the 70s, 80s and 90s in place of just stealing American advances because they were so far behind I can cite examples for you...

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately.
1. Factually, no they are not. The fastest network gear, CPU and GPU tech are all base on American research and innovation. America is still hands down leading the field in all categories but manufacturing cost, but that isn't for reasons of technological advancement but instead a 'different approach' to environmental and labour regulations.
2. Within the 5G space you alluded to earlier, there is an additional answer. Their 5G isn't 'better' but rather 'cheaper' for reasons stated in 1. The existence of their 'own' 5G tech though isnt' because Huawei's own R&D was caught up so fast through their own innovation. Instead if you look into the history of network companies, Canadian giant Nortel was giving Cisco a solid run for it's money for a time, until they utterly collapsed because of massive corporate espionage stealing almost all of their tech and under cutting them on price. China's just using the same playbook as Russia to catch up.

Russia beat America into space

Well, if you want to go down that road the conclusion is that fascism is the key to technological advancement, as America and Russia were largely just pitting the scientists they each captured from the Nazis against one another.

Once again though, my point has never been that only capitalism can result in innovation. Instead, I made the vastly more modest proposal that personal profit from inventions is beneficial to innovation. I further observed that the video author's own examples support that observation, and in that contradict his own conclusion.

Lol. Oh Bob. I see you didn't get that help you are crying out for.

Schiff isn't the one saying it.
It's the over a dozen Trump administration officials, you know, like the people who gave him a million dollars towards his election campaign to then be installed in his cabinet with zero experience, people that he now calls never trumpers...them, and idiot Trump himself who released a heavily redacted call summary, called it a transcript, and inexplicably left in the parts where he insisted on investigations into political rivals (and no one else) in exchange for releasing congressionally approved aid.

If Trump drained the swamp, it was only to turn it into the world's largest and most ecologically disastrous sewage holding pond.

Great job? On what? Destroying our international standing and standards? There he IS simply the best. Sucking up and capitulating to our enemies while abandoning and distancing our allies? Yep, better than all the rest. Lying to the American people? Better than anyone else. Running a criminal administration for his personal enrichment? No one else could pass the test.

If you call his disastrous work a "great job", what will you call his removal? The best job ever? You are so delusional that just last week you claimed Republicans run the house and Democrats run the Senate so you could blame our badly flawed paperless voting system on those evil Senate Democrats. *facepalm

Wasted billions on 70 miles of new wall.....that's really replacement fence that can be cut through in under a minute with a reciprocating saw, and only where barriers existed. Great. Increased illegal immigration exponentially. Great. Tax cuts/government welfare for the rich but not the needy that exploded the deficit and debt. Great. Failed trade agreements that have cost tens-hundreds of billions only to put us in a far worse position than before he started. Great. Zero investment in infrastructure. Great. Total decimation of environmental laws.
Great. Abandoning our best allies against terrorism to cozy up to dictators. Great. Best of all, he's widened the divide in America more than all administrations in the last 150 years combined, and recently began calling for preparation for civil war if he's not re-elected. Great.

Um...if he's removing deep state operatives, why are they all his people being jailed? More than even any two term administration ever, beating Nixon's indictment and conviction rates in under two years, before the Mueller fallout. Indeed, in that time he has had more than twice the convictions of all Democratic administration officials since 1970....again, before most Mueller convictions. (It bears noting that Republican officials are convicted at a rate >91 times that of Democrats).

What you really meant to say.....No matter what Trump says it is guaranteed to be a lie.

good video but a rather important thing he missed is, that many governments DO pay brasil to maintain the rainforest-

"Norway has followed Germany in suspending donations to the Brazilian government’s Amazon Fund after a surge in deforestation in the South American rainforest. The move has triggered a caustic attack from the country’s rightwing president.


Bolsonaro rejects 'Captain Chainsaw' label as data shows deforestation 'exploded'
Read more
Jair Bolsonaro, whose move to meddle in the environmental organisation’s governance led to Norway’s decision, reacted by suggesting that Europe was not in a position to lecture his administration.

“Isn’t Norway that country that kills whales up there in the north pole?”, the Brazilian president said. “Take that money and help Angela Merkel reforest Germany.”

After weeks of tense negotiations with Norway and Germany, the Bolsonaro government unilaterally closed the Amazon Fund’s steering committee on Thursday. The fund has been central to international efforts to curb deforestation although its impact is contested.

Brazil’s environment minister, Ricardo Salles, said the Amazon Fund had been suspended while its rules were under discussion.

In response, Ola Elvestuen, his Norwegian counterpart, said an expected payment of about $33.27m (£27.36m) would not take place as Brazil had, in effect, broken the terms of its deal. Norway has been the fund’s biggest donor, and has given about $1.2bn (£985m) over the past decade.

“He cannot do that without Norway and Germany’s agreement,” Elvestuen said. “What Brazil has shown is that it no longer wants to stop deforestation.”

This week Berlin had said it would withhold an expected payment of about $39m. Norway and Germany questioned an initial proposal from the Brazilian government for the fund’s steering committee to be reduced in size, and had warned against any weakening of the structures of the fund.

Grave concerns about the rate of deforestation since Bolsonaro took power have been repeatedly voiced by the Norwegian government and others.

According to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, the government agency that monitors deforestation, the rate increased by 278% in the year to July, resulting in the destruction of about 870 square miles."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-donation-dispute-brazil-deforestation-jair-bolsonaro


while I do agree that for 3rd world ex colonies it is extremely tiresome to hear lectures about ecology from the US and Europe, who tore up the planet to achieve their status and continue to consume far more than 3rd world people do, Bolsonaro is dead wrong here and sadly it has to be said this is what the democracy and capitalism produce: shortsighted win-now, defer the costs decisions.

It is a ludicrous resolution with pie in the sky hopes. It's the equivalent of passing a non-binding resolution to end all wars or to create a machine to pull water from the air without spending massive amounts of energy.

Not only does it suggest incredibly unrealistic goals on the environmental front, especially when one considers that China/Russia will cheat their fucking asses off to prevent meeting the goals due to the enormous economic hit, it also tries to tie in socialized medical care, high paying jobs for everyone, the death of large corporations, cheap housing, and (among other things) the economic security of ANYONE who is unable/unwilling to work.

While we are at it, we should start looking into breaking the concept into five year increments. I hear that did wonders for the USSR.

List of people in Trump's administration that have quit or been fired. The Trump Administration has seen the highest rate of turnover among White House staff in decades.

During the president’s first year, the administration saw a 34% turnover rate. This is the highest of any recent White House, according to a Brookings Institution report that tracked departures of senior officials over the last 40 years.

The next-highest turnover rate for an administration’s first year was Ronald Reagan’s, with 17% of senior aides leaving their posts in 1981.

Former presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton saw much lower turnovers during their first year in office—9%, 6%, and 11%, respectively.

------

John Kelly – December 2018. The retired Marine Corps general was hired in July 2017 to bring order to the White House.

Matthew Whitaker – December 2018. Named acting attorney general in November this year, replacing Jeff Sessions. Immediately came under scrutiny over past remarks about the investigation into possible Russian collusion with Mr Trump's presidential election campaign.

Nikki Haley – December 2018. Stepped down as US ambassador to the UN at the end of the year.

Jeff Sessions – November 2018. After months of being attacked and ridiculed by the president, the former senator was forced out as attorney general.

Don McGahn – October 2018. Mr Trump revealed in August that the White House counsel would leave following strains between the two over Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Scott Pruitt – July 2018. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief quit after he came under fire over a series of ethics controversies.

David Shulkin – March 2018. He left his position the Veteran Affairs secretary, telling the media he had been fired rather than resigning.

HR McMaster – March 2018. Mr Trump’s national security adviser was replaced by John Bolton.

Rex Tillerson – March 2018. The secretary of state was fired by the president on after a series rifts.

Gary Cohn – March 2018. The National Economic Council director and former Goldman Sachs president said he resigned his advisory role.

Hope Hicks – February 2018. The White House communications director, a long-serving and trusted Trump aide, decided to resign.

Rob Porter – February 2018. The White House staff secretary stepped aside following accusations of domestic abuse from former wives.

Omarosa Manigault Newman – December 2017. The former star of The Apprentice was fired as assistant to the president.

Richard Cordray – November 2017. The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s first director quit his administration role.

Tom Price – September 2017. The Health and Human Services secretary quit under pressure from Mr Trump over travel practices.

Stephen Bannon – August 2017. Mr Trump’s chief strategist was fired in after clashing with other top White House figures, including the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Anthony Scaramucci – July 2017. The White House communications director was fired by Mr Trump after only 10 days on the job. Mr Scaramucci had openly criticised Mr Bannon.

Reince Priebus – July 2017. Replaced as chief of staff by John Kelly, Priebus lost Mr Trump’s confidence after setbacks in Congress.

Sean Spicer – July 2017. Resigned as White House press secretary, ending a turbulent six-month tenure.

Walter Shaub – July 2017. The head of the US Office of Government Ethics, who repeatedly clashed with Mr Trump.

Michael Dubke – May 2017. Resigned as White House communications director.

Katie Walsh – March 2017. The deputy White House chief of staff was transferred out to a Republican activist group.

Michael Flynn – February 2017. Resigned in as Mr Trump’s national security adviser. Mr Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. He is set to be sentenced later in December.

Sally Yates – January 2017. Mr Trump fired the acting US attorney general after she ordered Justice Department lawyers not to enforce is immigration ban.

Guess what causes the most habitat destruction? Growing crops to feed FARM ANIMALS. This is not a vegan thing, it's scientific consensus amongst environmental scientists.

I'll again refer you to Dr. Richard Oppenlander speaking to the EU parliament if you care to find out more instead of just getting triggered.

Can't be.

He must be a lying, left-wing nutjob.

Our president says these kinds of ideas are all lies, and has even done society and humanity a favor by stripping away environmental protections.

Who knows more about science and cares more about the continuity of our species than Donald Trump?

Lol. Good point.....dirty hippies. ;-)

Um....what? Vegans should want to avoid them almost as much as the hunter's helper and slaughterhouse sucker brand lozenges, not flock to the brand marketed at meat harvesters.

Um...really? You think non vegans fear a vegan culinary takeover or something enough to falsify studies/polls? That's hilarious.
As to the 7% number, even vegan organizations in Britain disagree, as does Wiki....
According to a 2018 survey by Comparethemarket.com, the number of people who identify as vegans in the United Kingdom has risen to over 3.5 million, which is approximately seven percent of the population, and environmental concerns were a major factor in this development.[140] However, doubt was cast on this inflated figure by the UK-based Vegan Society, who perform their own regular survey: the Vegan Society themselves found in 2018 that there were 600,000 vegans in Great Britain (1.16%), which is a dramatic increase on previous figures.[141][142]
United States: Estimates of vegans in the U.S. vary from 2% (Gallup, 2012)[143] to 0.5% (Faunalytics, 2014). According to the latter, 70% of those who adopted a vegan diet abandoned it.

It's a shame that they didn't mention the negative effects of pesticides on the soil and environment.

For example there are pesticides that damage the soil and earthworms so badly that the soil becomes infertile.

I really want to see a serious commitment from developed nations on vertical farming though. You can eliminate so many issues, from water use, land use, and most of the transport problems - the office building next door could be a farm....and of course you don't need pesticides if you are growing things in a controlled environment.

We could give so much land back to mother nature. And perhaps we would stop losing 200 species of plants/animals each day.

At least they acknowledged that eating plants of any kind is more environmental than eating animal products. That's something we can all strive for ourselves. But it will require some government intervention or some really good start ups to start vertical farming. Where are my Tesla potato farms? :-)

Funny, following the law isn't important when it's environmental law, or international law, charity law, fraud law, tax law, etc.....or when it takes effort to follow American law. That's why he spent money on building and running child jails instead of immigration judges, who could solve the problem 100% by making the application process last under 3 weeks.
Democratic politicians have tried to solve this repeatedly, but obstructionist republicans couldn't let any Obama laws pass and kicked it down the road to where we are now, where democratic bills stand zero chance of consideration, much less a vote.

Trump intentionally caused this with his presidential order to move to zero tolerance and arrest asylum seekers in an effort to force the political issue while Republicans only need to stop Democrats from filibustering, but enough Republicans balked at his monsterousness that he actually needs democrats votes now, something he won't get.

Since it's so often American policy and American drug trade that has made their homes terrible places, we owe those who our actions have displaced an opportunity for asylum.

It's like I come to your home, break in, take your valuables, burn the house down looking for more, then deride you for needing help, deny you shelter, and tell you to get your shit together and stabilize your life while my other gang members pick through the rubble of your home, then we dump you in Reno, your wife in Oklahoma, and your kids.....somewhere, not our problem, you find them.

There isn't some sudden rush of immigrants like Trump and oan/faux claim, the rate is still fairly steady.

Also, contrary to the lies you've repeated, no party advocates open borders. That's as true as saying Republicans are advocating the destruction of families and murder of children. Democrats have tried to fund rational immigration controls and have been stymied, but Republicans just want to lock the door and only let in those with connections and money.....like the Bin Ladens.

To think otherwise is just ignorant of the facts.

Actually he's just a bicycle riding Seattle leftist trying to dispose of his protest sign in an environmentally friendly way