Scientific Facts Posted by Badlands National Park Disappear from Twitter

To resist, we must remember.

Badlands National Park, tweets on carbon dioxide and climate, 2017.01.24.
Badlands National Park, tweets on carbon dioxide and climate, 2017.01.24.

On the same day that the Trump White House brought the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines back from the grave and ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to stop issuing news releases, blog updates, or social media posts, the Twitter account of Badlands National Park, headquartered in Interior, South Dakota, posted the above four messages about carbon dioxide and climate change. Four hours after the first post, all four tweets disappeared from @BadlandsNPS. Earlier tweets from Badlands National Park on climate change remain online:

Also still online from the links above:

So, Donald, when are you coming to visit South Dakota? The Badlands really are breathtaking.

87 Responses to Scientific Facts Posted by Badlands National Park Disappear from Twitter

  1. I bet somebody lost a job, too. I’m just sayin…

  2. Do not despair, “alternative facts” likely coming soon.

  3. CA Brookings

    I wonder how the whistleblower laws will hold up through this administration. And what will come out after the fact? Cory, Do you have any idea how the administration would legally silence all of these branches? Under what laws is this possible?

  4. Roger Cornelius

    Also likely to disappear is the director of the Badlands National Park and the subordinate that posted this information.
    Whoever posted it is pretty damn courageous for standing up to that ‘that president’.

  5. mike from iowa

    If people lose jobs for poting facts, Drumpf should never have been coronated. For facts he lacks.

  6. Ryan Deplorable

    Ah, yes. I’m ready for the BuzzFeed/CNN articles telling me how our economic policies should be dictated by “global warming”…or is it “climate change”?

  7. Darin Larson

    Trump can tweet utter nonsense and lies, but Badlands park personnel can’t tweet out scientific facts? Fascism continues to creep into this administration.

    On a Trumpian note, we are getting a lot of national attention for South Dakota and the Badlands National Park. Tourist season is looking up. People will come from everywhere across this nation and the world this summer to honor these anonymous efforts to keep truth alive.

  8. When you use the corporate twitter account, Mr. Larson, you must abide by the corporate rules.

    Twitter all you want from your home twitter, but not the work one. I’m pretty sure Mr. H can understand this. It would be like if that fellow in the legislatures who wants to teach creationism just went all rogue against what the school board said and started teach crazy bible stuff. They would roll his head. And they should.

  9. Darin Larson

    Ah yes, Ryan Deplorable with the intellectually challenged short-term perspective on climate change: If my house isn’t flooded and there is still food at the supermarket, why are we bothering ourselves with something our kids and grand kids are going to have to deal with.

    Serious question: Why wouldn’t we make relatively small changes now that cost relatively much less than either the damage that will occur if climate change continues unabated or much less than if we don’t do anything for 50 years and then try to make up for lost time?

  10. Darin Larson

    Yes Grudz, let’s remove all scientific discussion and fact unless Trump approves of it: “Mein Fuhrer, may we announce the weather today as partly clouds?” “NO, there will cease to be any cloudy days while I am President! The weather will henceforth be fantastic!”

  11. Roger Cornelius

    South Dakota has made national news for two days in a row, neither was for good of the state.
    Yesterday major news outlets covered the state legislature ripping up the people’s choice by dismantling IM22, and today for the Badlands tweet.
    South Dakota leaders must be so proud.

  12. Ryan Deplorable

    Serious answer: It would take 33 years of ZERO man made emissions globally to save 1 degree celsius of increased temperature. Simply put, there are no “small changes”. Yes, clean energy may be the wave of the future, but not right now. It’s not sustainable. There are millions of people that die every year because they do not have coal powered energy sources. If saving lives is priority number one, let’s start there.

  13. Don’t get me wrong, Mr. Larson, I like those Badlands Bosstards tweeting stuff to throw a monkey wrench in the works. Ballsy Badlands Bosstards. We will all miss them.

  14. Roger Cornelius

    If we follow grudz’s twitter guidelines about government use of twitter accounts, that president should relinquish his twitter account immediately.

  15. Darin Larson

    Ryan says “There are millions of people that die every year because they do not have coal powered energy sources.”

    Ummmmm, care to back this statement up with sources? And are you saying they don’t have access to coal powered energy because of government efforts to combat climate change? You have some leaps in logic to explain this?

    So, if we use your numbers for a second, 66 years at half our current emissions would reduce temperatures by 1.8 degrees F or 1 degree C. If we reduced our emissions by 1/3 for 99 years, we could reduce temperatures by the same amount.

    You don’t seem to think that 1.8 degrees F is a big deal, but it could be the difference between melting the icecaps, raising the ocean levels catastrophically and disrupting the natural forces like the jet stream that gives us the relatively stable ecosystem that we enjoy.

    We may be forced to not only reduce emissions, but also power up Robert McTaggart’s nuclear powered carbon removal system in addition to reducing emissions. This is a long term problem with catastrophic results if we don’t get a handle on it.

  16. Darin Larson

    Grudz, first they came to get my neighbor and I didn’t say anything because it was none of my business. Then they came to get you and I didn’t say anything because it was none of my business. Then they came to get me and there was no one left to protest on my behalf.

  17. That’s exactly why we need to keep them out, Mr. Larson.

  18. Ryan Deplorable

    “People who cannot access electricity have to cook using biomass fuels on open fires. These fuels, from things such as animal waste, charcoal and wood, are extremely toxic when burned.
    This is especially dangerous for women and children in impoverished countries who spend most of their days cooking in poorly ventilated homes. The toxic fumes from burning biomass are responsible for more than 4 million deaths each year. Of those deaths, more than 50 percent are children under the age of five.”

    More than 2 million children die a year because they do not have access to electricity. An energy source mostly sustained by coal, wake up. I don’t intend on wasting my time or other resource looking for ways to solve a problem that may or may not happen and has little credible scientific information to back it’s claim. Children are dying right now, in the present, while we type because they don’t have access to electricity powered by coal….but no we are worried only about “my” children, and “my” grandchildren right?

  19. Darin Larson

    Grudz, they are already here. You can’t keep them out. All you can do is call them out for their words and actions and band together to oppose them.

  20. Greg Deplorable

    Crops love CO2 and warming has helped expand the cornbelt to northern regions increasing production and supply worldwide. Why are liberals hell bent on starving people and driving the price of food higher?

  21. Darin Larson

    Oh my goodness, Ryan. I thought surely your argument is more sophisticated than people don’t have electricity, so any deaths caused by them not having electricity are because we are using alternative energy sources in the US. The folks that don’t have electricity are in that predicament because of economic or geopolitical reasons far beyond the scope of the differences between coal fired power and other power sources.

  22. Porter Lansing

    What a President. Keeps his word, though. Mexican wall and Muslim ban starts next Monday. Don’t worry. Someone’s keeping a list. he he

  23. Darin Larson

    Ryan, no one is saying electricity is bad. Electricity good. Carbon in the air bad. Put less carbon in the air while producing electricity good. People live good with electricity and without as much carbon in the air.

  24. Greg Deplorable

    So the EPA mandated Ultra Low Sulfur fuels because of climate change and what not. Turns out plants love it, and now we’re having to add sulfur back into commercial fertilizer because crops are deficient and in the past captured it from the atmosphere. Once you get out of theory world, what did this mandate actually achieve?

  25. What exactly is the “pro-pollution” line of reasoning again? Why is the unfettered dumping of toxins in my air (and ground and water) a good thing?

  26. Hello Mr. & Mrs. Deplorable, get the children all tucked in, tomorrow being a school day and all. I see that you are following the new rule of getting your information directly from punkin head. Of course, for the rest of us, we choose alternative routes, like the truth.

  27. Greg Deplorable

    Funny you call CO2 a pollutant when it is essential for life on this planet. Talk about dystopia.

  28. Darin Larson

    Greg, who is starving? So, your argument is climate change is increasing crop production and that will continue even as our temperatures continue to rise and our weather becomes more severe. I’d love to see your research.

    As the cornbelt moves north, the southern areas become less hospitable to corn. As the weather becomes more severe with climate change, crops are likely to experience large fluctuations in production. If the jet stream or ocean currents get messed up, we can’t count on regular rainfall patterns. We may have the heat, but no rain to grow the crops or we may have big storms that wreck the crops. This is not a recipe for bigger crops.

  29. Greg Deplorable

    Save a tree, but take away its CO2. This makes sense.

  30. Darin Larson

    Water is essential for life on earth, but that doesn’t mean you can’t drown in it.

  31. Ryan Deplorable

    What I’m arguing is that instead of the first world nations coming together in Paris to combat a climate change hoax…they could come together and combat an issue that is resulting in millions of deaths each year. That simple.

  32. Ryan Deplorable

    Jerry, go comment on buzzfeed articles, adults are talking here.

  33. Greg Deplorable

    You might believe that but that sure hasn’t been the reality. Trend line yields & production keep increasing. If Climate change was the killer you all believe it to be we’d be seeing some serious drops in production. Last 2 years were record production. Cheap & plentiful food is good right?

  34. Greg Deplorable

    The best last year had to be that boat stuck in the ice that was trying to measure the receding ice caps. Then the rescue boat got stuck as well. Theory meets reality.

  35. Donald Pay

    The Deplorable Bros. have some interesting factoids. Unfortunately they are really not complete.

    First, coal is a concentrated form of the biomass fuels he is criticizing. Thus, everything he says regarding the toxicity of biomass fuels goes about 100-1,000 times for coal.

    Second, biomass fuel is primarily used in small villages and rural areas, where burning is done in separate households that are separated by some distance. Generally, concentrations do not rise to levels of concern for health.

    Third, use of biomass fuel is often not practical in large town or cities. Distance to wood sources and animal waste often becomes limiting. But, in some cities and towns near woods and forests, wood sources can, in certain meteorological conditions (inversions), cause problems due to wood smoke being trapped near the surface of the atmosphere. Rapid City experiences such problems about 5-10 days every winter.

    Fourth, a major pollution problem in cities in China and India, and formerly in England and the United States, comes not from biomass, but from coal burning stoves, and coal burning industrial facilities. Lots of deaths occurred in cities in England and the United States before we began regulating large sources of coal burning and switched coal for natural gas and electric stoves.

    Fifth, the reason coal fired power plants don’t spew far more toxic emissions than they do is because they have come under increasing environmental regulations since the late 1940s. These plants still aren’t tightly regulated for a number of pollutants, including mercury.

    Sixth, because coal fired power plants are so toxic, we have tended to build them more and more in rural areas. That’s fine for limiting concentrations of pollutants to populated areas, but the atmosphere and biosphere still are being bombarded by those pollutants.

  36. Darin Larson

    Ultra low sulfur diesel was required to reduce air pollution, you know so we can breathe cleaner air:

    According to EPA estimates, with the implementation of the new fuel standards for diesel, nitrogen oxide emissions will be reduced by 2.6 million tons each year and soot or particulate matter will be reduced by 110,000 tons a year.

    ULS Diesel was mandated during the Bush Administration in 2006.

  37. Greg Deplorable

    I’m just noting the irony of ULSD. Regulators remove it for environmental reasons, and now farmers are having to add it back into fertilizer because plants are deficient.

  38. Porter Lansing

    Burning coal kills fish and pheasants.

  39. Greg Deplorable

    Corn & Wheat major foodstuffs deficient in Sulfur, yet EPA deems this a pollutant.

  40. Darin Larson

    Thanks Donald Pay for the well thought out facts.

    But who can argue with the fact we have had 2 big crops in the US (actually its been 4 big crops in a row) and some boats got stuck in the ice. That cinches it: Climate change must not be a problem.

  41. Darin Larson

    My corn crop is deficient in nitrogen unless I add some to the crop, but that doesn’t mean I want to bathe in nitrogen. I am also happy to add sulfur to my fertilizer program rather than breath it in and I’m sure the folks who used to endure the acid rains out East are happy that sulfur level have been reduced.

  42. I know, that is why I addressed you formally. The fact is, there is not much that can be done right now. You married folk will get your way and that will be that, for now. Mr. & Mrs. Deplorable, it does not matter much any more. Take it. Take the whole thing and run with it. I do that when I trap for beavers. You see, you have to catch them first and then you have to allow them to drown themselves. It ain’t pretty, but it is pretty damn effective and humane. Now, you can go check on the children and wonder just how the hell much this is gonna cost you. Yep, I said you. Me, I just cashed out this afternoon. I am gonna be setting waiting for the good deals..just like the Chinese. Life is indeed funny. No matter what you and the Mrs. say, it really does not matter. We are not screwed here, we are just waiting for you all to trip that Conibear and pull the cable.

  43. Greg Deplorable

    I don’t know how you guys live with yourself knowing every breath you take is contributing to more CO2 concentration in our atmosphere. God help us. Maybe there will be a day when liberals can all collectively hold their breath.

  44. Darin Larson

    Cause we all know that if a little CO2 is good, a lot of CO2 is gonna be great. Make America Great Again with more CO2!

  45. Ryan Deplorable

    Donald Pay, are you trying to make my point for me?

    “Second, biomass fuel is primarily used in small villages and rural areas, where burning is done in separate households that are separated by some distance. Generally, concentrations do not rise to levels of concern for health.”

    …Uh ya think? When you live in a hut, in a small village, and you rely on biomass fuel to cook your food (because you don’t have an electric stove), you die. 4 million deaths related to people using biomass fuel for their cooking. That’s considered a health concern where I’m from.

  46. Darin Larson

    You’re right Ryan. Those people in the hut should plug in their electric stove. They just have to mine the coal, build the power plant, lay the transmission lines, build the substations, build some more electric lines to their hut, wire their hut and get an electric stove. Why didn’t they think of this? You should call somebody at the UN. You could prevent the deaths of millions of people!

  47. Ryan Deplorable

    Darin, that is my point exactly. Why are we wasting our time and resources on a hoax, we could direct our resources to help those in need, you refuse to accept that as an option, SAD!

  48. O.K., knock off the satire, Ryan. Calling climate change a hoax demonstrates your inability to engage in reasonable discourse. Chill out a bit, come back when you have reasonable, evidenced refutation of the documents presented by EPA and NPS (see original post).

  49. Darin Larson

    So you are saying we can’t both work on the immediate needs of people living in a hut to get electricity and the needs of people now and in the future as they grapple with the effects of climate change and try to avoid making climate change worse than it already will be? I certainly disagree.

    Maybe the solar technology we are developing to combat climate change becomes the key to getting electricity to a far flung village with no access to an electrical grid? Maybe the battery technology we are developing becomes mass produced and affordable for the village as well so they can have light and power when the sun isn’t shining. Or the development of wind energy technology could supplement the solar energy for heavier industries in the village with more power demands.

    Your assumption that this can’t be a win-win situation is where you are wrong.

  50. Ryan Deplorable

    Lot of “maybes” in that second paragraph. We know what works right now, and where people don’t have what works. Don’t have time for “maybes”, people dying, get them coal powered electricity.

  51. Darin Larson

    Better get started on that power plant then, Ryan. You just need a couple billion dollars to get started with a source of coal, small generation plant, transmission lines, substations and transformers and local lines. Then you need money to operate the plant every year and maintain the equipment, but the people in the hut probably can’t afford to pay for the costs of your plant, so you’ll need another 50 to 100 million a year for that.

    Or you could spend a few thousand dollars to power a village with renewable energy. Nah, you are just spitballin’.

  52. With all that oil glut coming to market, who needs ethanol? That will save a whole lot of water that has to be used in production. With the oil flowing through those pipes, that will hurt me personally as I like the rails, but such is life. Now, to bring those thousand and thousands of permanent jobs that our punkin head wants to bestow on us with the pipeline, he will have to leave them here in the Dakotas.

    What I see is that there will not be a need all that corn production anymore, cut it back. We could do that with a jobs program that literally reinvents the wheel. Yup, bring back the wheelwrights to right this ship immediately. Indeed, the three bottom plow was and still is the best form of breaking sod evaaah. Convert those babies into something with less of a grab for starters. Put the wheelwrights to making those wheels and bring back the horse power literally. With cattle prices in the tank, we could then use their leather for the harness along with the abundance of oil to keep them subtle and work ready.

    Thanks to both Mr. & Mrs. Deplorable and all the rest of those that are deplorable in nature for making this all possible. This is your doing to make our water so it is not pure or even close to the pure your Good Book told you all to leave behind. They tell me that there are a whole lot of religious folk that believe the words of the Book. If this is true, what part do they not understand about pure, as in pure air and pure water?

  53. mike from iowa

    Ryan Deplorable- “People who cannot access electricity have to cook using biomass fuels on open fires.

    How many millions of Americans don’t have access to electricity because they can’t pay the exhorbitant costs that profit the wealthy?
    Americans die every year because electricity is cut off and your government wants to make sure even more get cut off by dismantling welfare programs while subsidizing power korporations.

  54. Ryan Deplorable

    Darin, we can start with cutting 2015 EPA regulations, there’s $11 billion.

    Mike are you that delusional? Do you know what increases energy costs, regulations. When you strangle energy companies with regulations, it results in those companies having to increase their energy prices to stay afloat. 40,000 European deaths in 2014 occurred because of people not being able to afford their utility bills, due to energy regulations.

    Is taking money from the rich the solution to every liberals problem?

  55. Brietbart, the official russian news agency in America, reports and you decide.
    The deaths have to do with poorly insulated homes added to energy costs and an unusually cold bitter winter in Europe. What does the EPA in this country have to do with the energy costs? What has to do with the energy costs here in South Dakota is the PUC, Nelson and crew regulate the price that utility companies can charge. Last I looked, that was a Republican gig.

  56. This is the official report from the UK regarding deaths due to winter kill for its citizens. When it gets cold with spikes of cold, the elderly suffer the most. I am really puzzled that you would bring in the UK’s death toll from a severe winter, that has been the worst in decades, and try to say that the American EPA had something to do with their deaths.

  57. In Russia, our new mirror, the same reports of a brutal winter that has killed thousands. Again, nothing noted about the cause being the American EPA. That is unless you are saying that because of not paying attention to the EPA, we are causing deaths worldwide with our denial of correcting polutants in our air to send to them. Brilliantly good call then for the strengthing of the EPA.

  58. Fine, Ryan. Join Trump in running interference for fossil fuel corporations while China takes the lead in adapting to resource realities. The fuel you and Trump want to burn more of will run out. Using more of it has immediate and long-term environmental consequences, but depending on more of it, deregulating to allow more of it and disincentivize conservation and renewable energy, has long-term strategic consequences.

    The Chinese understand this, but since they are more rationally committed to becoming the global hegemon than we are to remaining the global hegemon, they are able to put science above ideology and invest in an economy that doesn’t depend on dwindling resources.

    The transition from fossil fuels to efficiency and renewables takes time (let’s say fifty years, which is debatable) If affordable oil will only last 50 years (invitation to stats and projections!), then the country that starts its transition now will be better equipped to keep running its tools of global domination—tanks, factories, and server farms—than the country that sits around with its head up its ideological butt electing know-nothing TV stars as President and wakes up 50 years from now with the gas tank empty and not enough solar panels and fusion reactors to turn the national crank.

    Ryan, your Trumpist denialism threatens our national security.

  59. Yes, our EPA must be strengthened rather than weakened, good point Deplorable, valid point.

    “The rate soared by 33 per cent in the week up until January 16, when there were almost 15,000 deaths, as the bitter cold snap took hold.
    An additional 3,000 deaths are expected this week as temperatures plunge to their coldest of the winter so far.
    The statistics suggest that by March 31, the end date for Department of Health winter deaths totals, numbers will have surpassed 2008-2009’s flu-hit toll of 36,450 toll, making it the worst since 1999-2000’s landmark peak of 48,440 deaths.
    Mr Booth said: “Pensioners should stay warm, eat well and try to avoid going out in the cold, as falls can often result in complications and sadly even lead to death.””

  60. Reports from the USA, where I live, report this ”

    The only thing the EPA could possibly do to alleviate the homeless death would be to build shelters that comply with EPA standards. We could build them in each town and city across the land for protection of vulnerable homeless folks in both the winter and the summer. A very liberal idea Deplorable,

  61. Europeans do not live in huts. They actually live very well. In fact, longer than Americans.

    Great insurance, great public transportation. Great standard of living and No Trump. Damn straight, a tri-fecta.

  62. These regulation cost arguments are silly because they are founded on a premise of no profit. Advocates make it seem like the production and sale of energy is a zero margin industry that only covers its costs with its pricing. That is false. There is profit in that industry. When anyone says that $11 billion was added to costs because of EPA regulation, they perpetuate that talking point only because lowering the profit is automatically off the table for the oligarchy of ownership.

    Your argument that we need to reduce regulation to sustain or increase the profits of the wealthy rings hollow. Flint MI would certainly think so. Regulation protects safety, security, and life. Regulation exists because profit mongers cannot be trusted with any element of the public good if it can be ruined for profit.

    What really is your end: the unchecked exploitation of any resource for profit?

  63. mike from iowa

    Mike are you that delusional? Do you know what increases energy costs, regulations. When you strangle energy companies with regulations, it results in those companies having to increase their energy prices to stay afloat. 40,000 European deaths in 2014 occurred because of people not being able to afford their utility bills, due to energy regulations.

    What a load of BULLSKIT! You what increases energy costs? Naked freaking GREED! That is what increases fuel costs. Wingnuts are diseased, greedy bastards and don’t care who dies because of it.

  64. Robert McTaggart

    Cory, don’t forget new nuclear in the role of combatting climate change.

    The U.S. House just passed a bill called the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2017 (HR 590) (bipartisan sponsorship by the way):

    “Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the NRC shall transmit to Congress a plan for developing an efficient, risk-informed, technology-neutral framework for advanced reactor licensing.”

    Also in the news, Terrestrial Energy says that it will submit an application for licensing to the NRC of its molten salt reactor by 2019.

    This is the design that uses low pressure technology without any water, so you can site it away from water sources or earthquake zones. It is also feasible for making process heat, which could replace heat from natural gas to support future biofuel production, if not heat needed to recycle solar cells or wind turbine infrastructure.

  65. Ryan Deplorable

    The EPA is an American agency, so no I’m not blaming European deaths on the EPA. I’m merely pointing out that increased regulations in Europe have resulted in higher utility bills, and some people cannot pay for those bills and die. It has nothing to do with which agency is increasing regulations, its the fact that increased regulations are occurring because of an idea that can be debunked scientifically.

  66. Robert McTaggart

    What is also of interest to fans of wind (no pun intended) and solar is the ability of molten salt reactors to load follow. Thus you can avoid the carbon that natural gas backup generates.

    These remove and handle the Xenon-135 that eats neutrons and emits photons, robbing a reactor of neutrons, and thus making operations less efficient. Today’s reactors can load follow, and you lose less money than you would if you shut the reactor down, but you don’t make a profit.

  67. Robert, I’m open the role of nuclear power in avoiding China’s usurpation of America’s positive global influence. Nuclear power at least won’t run out and wreck the climate as surely as Ryan’s wishful fossil-fuel worship.

    Climate change is no hoax. Ryan is a hoax—he can’t even use his real name, let alone real science.

  68. barry freed

    Oldthinkers unbellyfeel trumpspeak

    Translation for the unread: “Those whose ideas were formed before the Revolution cannot have a full emotional understanding of the principles of Trumpism.”

  69. Robert McTaggart

    Climate change is not a hoax. Just look at what happened to the planet Venus.

    I am not against using more wind and solar, but given the choices of energy storage that isn’t there, natural gas backup that emits a lot of carbon (although less than coal), or load following nuclear, I prefer the latter :^).

  70. Darin Larson

    Robert, keep working on nuclear technology upgrades including safety because we might need to run them full bore to pull carbon out of the atmosphere in about 25 years to make up for the lack of action right now. With people like Ryan calling the shots in Washington right now, we are losing valuable time to engineer a temperature plateau that we can live with without major disruptions.

    The climate scientists are already talking about our planet reaching a tipping point that we won’t be able to stop as the positive feedback loop of temperature increasing, ice caps melting, and carbon increasing results in a catastrophic climate change.

    People like Ryan will sit on their hands and disbelieve all evidence like those who believed the earth was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe.

    But hey, there’s usually an upside to change for someone. Russia will likely benefit as their grain belt moves north and Siberia becomes a more hospitable place. Maybe Russia can give Trump’s kids some land for development in trade for keeping the carbon train rolling.

  71. barry freed

    re: People in Huts.

    Rural Chinese used to keep pigs in their houses. The pen had a methane digestor underneath. The food scraps and excrement were scraped down a hole and decomposed fueling their stoves. lights, and heaters. It is good their Government is helping them move the pigs outside. Our waste treatment plants should be utilized the same way. Maybe use the gas to run public transit diesel buses.

    I have a problem with her pouring slurry on her crops and then harvesting them… dangerous. .

  72. Robert McTaggart

    There is a lot we can do with regard to the requisite safety and engineering without a reactor here at SDSU.

    The climate does not care whether the carbon is natural or man-made, but we should be working to reduce the man-made ones and addressing the total amount regardless.

    Instead of shutting down safe nuclear plants that are losing out to the current economics of natural gas, I would rather find a way to dedicate them to 24/7/365 carbon removal or charging batteries for electric cars, or both.

  73. Mr. Freed, Thanks to the Arab oil embargo, in the early 70’s we worked on projects that would utilize human waste in a central containment facility to provide methane gas for home use. As I recall, the tank would take the waste of a cul-de-sac housing area process it, add the stink to it the gas for domestic use. In addition to that, we were setting the area up for solar panels. Of course, the embargo was lifted and here is the abuse we live in today.

  74. Greg Deplorable

    I hope all these agencies keep tweeting. First part of the purge is identifying the targets.

  75. Darin Larson

    I tend to agree with you, Dr. McTaggart, when you weigh all the factors. The downsides for nuclear in the event of an accident are somewhat limited to the region around the nuclear plant and we can minimize those risks. The effect of climate change has global repercussions which could destabilize the world order and ultimately lead to anarchy. Ryan is not going to like it when all those liberals from New York City are forced to move and some of them end up in South Dakota.

  76. barry freed

    Mr, Taggart,
    We tried Nuclear Power in SD. It failed, and downstream of the purge, it killed neighborhood children with leukemia.

    Please refrain from insulting us with the word: “Safe”. Necessary: maybe. Safe, never.

  77. I hope Mr. President doesn’t come here. “Go to the big cities instead and boss them around instead”. Seems he is not fond of non-white people’s. He is scary. It’s like going back to the old days when all non-whites were in jeopardy esp. Us Natives. Yikes!…
    History seems to be repeating itself.

  78. Robert McTaggart

    barry freed,

    There has only ever been one nuclear power plant in South Dakota, and I don’t think it ever generated any commercial power except when it was converted into a natural gas plant.

    So are you suggesting a link between natural gas and leukemia? Or are there other industrial causes of leukemia that you are neglecting (to be fair….there are a lot of potential causes).

  79. Robert McTaggart

    Or are you talking about uranium mining?

  80. Robert McTaggart

    Poland is shifting away from coal and Russian natural gas towards nuclear plus renewables.

  81. As your next President, I promise an irradiated chicken in every pot and a fusion reactor in every city, including the new cities we will build on terraformed Mars. ;-)

  82. Robert McTaggart

    Repeat after me….yes we can, yes we can!

  83. mike from iowa×574.jpg

    The Empire strikes back at “tiny hands”.