I think he works for Exxon as a lobbyist lobbying the gov't to spend tax payer money to protect Big Oil Assets from the effects of Climate Change.



Big oil asks government to protect it from climate change

As the nation plans new defenses against the more powerful storms and higher tides expected from climate change, one project stands out: an ambitious proposal to build a nearly 60-mile “spine” of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees on the Texas Gulf Coast.

... this one would protect ... some of the crown jewels of the petroleum industry,...

Normally outspoken critics of federal spending, Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz both backed using taxpayer funds to fortify the oil facilities’ protections and the Texas coast. Cruz called it “a tremendous step forward.”...

The problem is for humanity indefinite means like 500 years. Throughout most of the history of life on Earth (and even humanity) if you fell asleep for 1, 10 or 100 thousand years and woke up you wouldn't be able to tell. If you imagine a species studying humanity in 65 million years with the same level of knowledge and ability that we have now, basically how we study dinosaurs, I'd say there is at least a 75% chance we are in the era of human extinction. Just like there is at least a 2000 year window for the K–Pg event. If humanity's extinction has more gradual causes like the great dying pretty much any human who could speak would have lived in a time overlapping the error bars on when humans went extinct.

Well I know at least one person who doesn't get to come with us to the doomsday bunker.

Definitely feeding Debbie Downer over there to the pollution zombies.

The doomsday bunker is this piece of rock floating in space, so we’re pretty much stuck with each-other.

Inso0, I guess you're gonna have to learn to like the smell of cigarette smoke, buddy. We're all in the bunker together.

Small price to pay for the survival of the species, right? Right?

Incorrect. Go be smelly somewhere else.

It was a passing mention, but frankly the most optimistic thing I saw in the video is farmers starting to think about crops in terms of $/gallon of water and that CA is starting to limit ground water use and some farms are about to get out.

A lot of the farming in CA is just unsustainable and should just move east to where the water is.

Now that the Democrats are in virtually full control of the state government here in California, they're working overtime to turn the (once) great Golden State into one big dumpster fire.

For the first time in basically forever, California lost a House seat due to many citizens escaping WestWorld for more promising states like Texas and Tennesse.

California population grew. Texas grew faster (probably because it still has more open flat land)

If the population of California grew, how come we lost a House seat?

Because we haven't increased the size of the house to 2000 members like California wants us to.

Well the FoundingFathers had some thoughts on the size of Congress/the House as well. As time passed--politicians had the option of diluting or maintaining their power--guess which way they chose? It should be a natural position of the people opposed to a strong fed to want more local reps in the mix imo.

"Thank you madam Chair for bringing this issue to light. We here in the 192nd district of Calif -- "

"I'm sorry sir your time is up. We have a lot of people to get through on this topic."

I could be wrong, but I think it's logically impossible for a state to have its population increase while at the same time lose a House seat.

There are only so many to go around.

It's not strictly about population, it's about your percentage of the overall population number.

If CA population went up by 1 million, but Texas went up by 5 million, they cut into your overall percentage and thus, drink your milkshake.

Out of curiosity, I looked it up and the founding fathers intended for each member to represent no more than 30,000 individuals.

So that makes the US House of Representatives approximately 10,500 members short.

We're gonna need a bigger auditorium.

Okay, I get it now. Thanks.

Puts kind of a new spin on that whole 1776 fairytale conservatives like to tell themselves huh? Kinda similar on the state level as well--look how many counties the eastern half of the country is chopped up into--looks like people wanted their govt nice and close by like a baby blanket

Greenhouse gases only absorb certain ranges of wavelengths of the relatively broadband radiation the earth emits, such that no single one is capable of absorbing 100% of the earths radiation emission.

The ranges of wavelengths each greenhouse gas absorbs don't overlap substantially, so that the contribution of each to global T is nearly independent of one another - they will pick up what the others miss.

This is why raising methane levels from low concentrations to anything significant is such a big deal, it essentially is adding another independent greenhouse effect to the planet.

So chopping down the Amazon Rain Forests or burning them to raise cattle is very bad

Bottom line according to AOC we only got 10 years left .

Its OK a carbon tax will fix everything

not ideal lol

If I recall her quote correctly in the context, she mistepped being sensationalistic/hyperbolic and clarified later.

Yeah I know I am being sarcastic but folks like AOC hurt the cause that is so real. Reality only technology can save us and unless China and India are onboard were screwed.

Isn’t China trying to fight climate changes now ?
India ? Yes sure .

But I find it intriguing people favors waiting about poor people to make changes about climate changes when the top of the ladder having much more capacity and wealth to do something about it ….

Maybe China , India and the like are the most emitters but let’s not lie ourself that the develop countries had emit a lot more in the last 100-150 years, gaining massive wealth …