Jump to content

Ask A Fish For Advice... Or Stuff...


I Am A Fish

Recommended Posts

On 8/14/2020 at 2:50 PM, I Am A Fish said:

I'd establish equal education, Upgrade transport systems, Move towards renewable energy, Establish widespread access to clean water. 

I'd invest in low income areas, allowing them to evolve. I'd establish international databases that allow people to find jobs, and regulate companies like google.

I'd do what is best for the people of the world. 

And how do you plan to pay for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, I Am A Fish said:

Yeah, 

but I'll have the resources of every country. 

But, you have to pay for every country.

I'd say that's balance out, and I suspect you will be much better leader than China has had in decades and you have to dedicate reasorces to fixing the mess there, and bringing third world countries up to speed with the rest of the world.

And you have to complete with the constantly growing factions in the government that call to redivide the world back into nation states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, I Am A Fish said:

That makes very little sense?

I'd still let countries govern themselves, so long as no human rights violations are committed, and the rules I'd established were followed.  

But you can't take the entirely of their tax revenue, and everything else I said still stands, there is a portion of America right now that isn't too pleased with the UN, and other global agencies.

 

And on top of that, what energy are you referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Frustration said:

But you can't take the entirely of their tax revenue, and everything else I said still stands, there is a portion of America right now that isn't too pleased with the UN, and other global agencies.

 

And on top of that, what energy are you referring to?

Thermal, Hydro, Solar, Wind,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, I Am A Fish said:

Solar,

Requires you to clear large sections of land, and when the panels contain toxic elements that aren't removed when they are thrown out.

5 minutes ago, I Am A Fish said:

Hydro,

Requires you to block river flow which can be harmful to the natural wildlife

7 minutes ago, I Am A Fish said:

 Wind,

A huge killer of endangered birds, and another land hog.

 

And on top of that cutting fossil fuels eliminates 80% of energy production (in America at least I don't know other countries)

And all of these options are more expensive which really hurts developing nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frustration said:

Solar,

Requires you to clear large sections of land, and when the panels contain toxic elements that aren't removed when they are thrown out.

Hydro,

Requires you to block river flow which can be harmful to the natural wildlife

A huge killer of endangered birds, and another land hog.

 

And on top of that cutting fossil fuels eliminates 80% of energy production (in America at least I don't know other countries)

And all of these options are more expensive which really hurts developing nations.

Solar, can easily be placed on the top of large buildings, and put in underground landfills.

Hydro, I'm not talking about dams, there are other ways to gain power from rivers,

Wind, They don't disturb animals on the ground, and can be coated in reflective material preventing bird collisions,

Thermal, is amazing, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, I Am A Fish said:

Solar, can easily be placed on the top of large buildings, and put in underground landfills.

Hydro, I'm not talking about dams, there are other ways to gain power from rivers,

Wind, They don't disturb animals on the ground, and can be coated in reflective material preventing bird collisions,

Thermal, is amazing, 

Go with solar. Wind takes up far too much land compared to its energy output. Hydro and thermal simply don't have enough sources (although you could use them as supplements). You can put solar panels on practically every structure there is, in addition to places like the Sahara. Trust me, I worked on a math model involving this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FriarFritz said:

Go with solar. Wind takes up far too much land compared to its energy output. Hydro and thermal simply don't have enough sources (although you could use them as supplements). You can put solar panels on practically every structure there is, in addition to places like the Sahara. Trust me, I worked on a math model involving this problem.

Still have to deal with the radioactive and toxic chemicals.

If you're determined to eliminate fossil fuels (not going to happen) go with nuclear, more bang for your buck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Frustration said:

Still have to deal with the radioactive and toxic chemicals.

If you're determined to eliminate fossil fuels (not going to happen) go with nuclear, more bang for your buck.

Eliminating them is not the goal, it's reducing their usage as much as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, I Am A Fish said:

Scientists have said by about 2030 climate change will be irreversible.

 

They've been saying stuff like that for decades.

I believe it was like 2002 that they said if we didn't do anything the Brittan would be underwater by.... 2020 I think. Don't quote me on the dates, but it  past several years ago.

Another thing wrong with that is the fact that all fossil fuels where once part of the carbon cycle but got 'kicked' out for lack of a better term. So if anything burning fossil fuels is good for the environment as it prolongs it's possible exsistance.

Edited by Frustration
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frustration said:

They've been saying stuff like that for decades.

I believe it was like 2002 that they said if we didn't do anything the Brittan would be underwater by.... 2020 I think. Doi quote me on the dates, but it was several years ago.

Two things:

  1. Except changes were made. Not massive ones, but still changes 
  2. I found nothing that said, that was said
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, I Am A Fish said:
  1. I found nothing that said, that was said

I'll look around, I probably won't get it here until at least tomorrow, but I'll see.

1 minute ago, I Am A Fish said:

Two things:

And what about

6 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Another thing wrong with that is the fact that all fossil fuels where once part of the carbon cycle but got 'kicked' out for lack of a better term. So if anything burning fossil fuels is good for the environment as it prolongs it's possible exsistance.

And just for fun, how much of the atmosphere do you think is Co2?

No wrong answers but take your best shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, I Am A Fish said:

Most of the atmosphere is nitrogen. Co2 SHOULD only take up a tiny part of the atmosphere (0.007% or something). Since the industrial revolution though, there's been a 47% increase.

 

My guess for Co2 is 0.05%

Close 0.04%

And it was 0.03% before the industrial revolution if I recall correctly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...