What he wants is the focus on “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as used in the 14th amendment. He isn’t after birthright citizenship. He wants formal recognition that certain people are not owed constitutional protections.

Immediately, he wants “immigrants” to be in the same category as “enemy combatants”, whose rights and privileges are defined by international treaty, rather than recognized by the constitution.

This particular manner of death is one in a trillion. The odds that these three were going to die in a car together was quite a bit closer to parity.

I would call that “fraud”. In declaring themselves “gynecologists”, they are effectively advertising that they are qualified and willing to perform routine gynecological procedures. Their refusal to do so constitutes a fraud on patients seeking such services.

“Neonatology”, “Histology”, “Reproductive physiology” and “Reproductive biology” are comparable specialty fields wherein the practitioner would not be expected to perform elective abortions.

Additionally, if they would prefer to call themselves “general practitioners”, I would be far more lenient in allowing them to define their own scope of practice.

Fair Ok

FTFY.

I’m a gynecologist. My religion says I can’t do an abortion.

I would say that if “you” won’t perform an abortion, “you” are not actually a gynecologist. Go study and practice urology, or proctology, or gastroenterology, or oncology, or neurology, or cardiology, or dermatology, or any other field where “you” will not be called upon to perform a simple, routine procedure.

Jon Stewart, 2028.

The problem with Reagan and Trump isn’t that they were actors. The problem is that they were complete pieces of shit long before they were elected.

Actor-presidents have demonstrated a natural propensity for revolutionary disruption of entrenched attitudes. Reagan completely fucked over economic policy; Trump is completely fucking over the fundamental concept of democracy.

Imagine that same degree of revolutionary disruption moving us toward egalitarianism rather than corpo-fascism.

Lawmakers should be pilloried.

The crank stations? Or their users?

At this point, you just seem obscenely delusional to me.

This does not surprise me. I mean, you suggested spraying carbon-rich “fertilizer” within the biosphere as a valid approach toward reducing atmospheric carbon.

Your basic understanding of the concept of “sequestration” is irreparably flawed.

Biomass is something different… Do it right and you can just use it as fertilizer. Just grow a bunch of algae and spray it over dry land… It’s that easy. It’ll feed the soil, which locks up a lot of carbon back into the food chain. Stack wood in a desert, who cares. There’s so many better ways to do this

You fail to comprehend the concept or need for “sequestering”. What you are talking about perpetuates the atmospheric carbon cycle. It does not decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide. The mass biodegrades, re-releasing the carbon. “Sequestration” locks that carbon out of the biosphere. You are not talking about sequestration.

You keep jumping back and forth between biofuel and biomass.

Biomass is the raw substance. Biofuel is processed biomass. Processing it into a solid fuel is relatively trivial by little more than compressing it under relatively low pressure. Processing into liquid fuels is far more complicated and energy intensive than CO2 capture after combustion. For sequestration purposes, biomass would not be processed into liquid fuel. Liquid biofuels would only be used for transportation purposes.

And CO2 is a fucking gas

Not at the depths and pressures we’re talking about.

But it does not stay that way! We live in Earth, and most cavities aren’t able to stay pressurized without leaking

I think you need to revisit that misconception. The cavities we’re talking about certainly are.

You can bury solid biofuel,

Not in the volumes necessary for atmospheric carbon capture, no, we cannot. Furthermore, solid biofuels are not stable, certainly not as stable as CO2.

Sequestering a fluid is far simpler, safer, and more stable than attempting the same with a solid.

Your arguments seem to assume that what you’re putting back into the ground is a fluid of some sort, either oil or gas.

Biomass is not typically handled as a fluid. Biomass is generally a solid. Picture “wood mulch”, or “corn stalks”. While the specific materials will vary, the most common format for these biofuels is as a pelletized commodity: The source material is physically pressed into small lumps and handled like coal, not oil or gas.

Conveying liquified CO2 through a pipe and into a reservoir is a trivial exercise. Conveying pelletized biomass into a suitable storage facility in quantities necessary to have a practical effect is not feasible.

What methods are you using to convert pelletized biomass into liquid hydrocarbons, suitable for pumping back into the ground? How is that method superior to pumping compressed CO2 instead?

My old PC locks up every 4 to 48 hours. It would make a terrible NAS.

Hydrocsrbon chains are the most efficient way to store carbo

Volumetric efficiency is not the relevant metric. Energy efficiency is much more important. The process you describe requires far greater energy input to complete the sequestration.

Furthermore, the physical properties are a problem. Biomass appropriate to this process is conveyed as a flammable, pelletized solid; CO2 is an inert fluid. One of these can be pumped via pipeline into empty subterranean reservoirs; the other cannot.

You’re right about biofuel… Except that biofuel is already refined biomass. The water is already removed, usually to become as close to pure hydrocarbons as possible.

Hydrocarbons.

Chains of hydrogen and carbon.

Your comment demonstrates you’re not fully understanding the chemistry of the combustion. If you remove the “water” I am talking about, you wouldn’t have a hydrocarbon. You would have only carbon.

The “water” I am talking about is the “hydro” part of the “hydrocarbon”. That “hydro” does not become CO2 when it burns. That “hydro” becomes H2O.

When burning lighter hydrocarbons, the majority of the exhaust in the stack is actually water vapor rather than CO2. Putting that hydrogen into the ground, unburnt, provides no additional benefit over putting just the CO2 into the ground. It merely fills up the reservoir faster, and requires even more energy for the same amount of carbon sequestration. Burning that biomass, it is (theoretically) possible for the energy recovered (after powering sequestration operations) to be a net positive.

Sequestering the unburned biofuel without recovering that energy, the operation must be a net negative.

If you’re pulling CO2 out of the air, why in the world would you turn around and burn it???

Because the CO2 we pull out of the air is not in a form that we can feasibly sequester. It’s padded with excessive hydrogen and oxygen into carbohydrate chains. When we burn that vegetation, we convert it to primarily to H2O, along with some CO2. Targeting the CO2 alone, we can sequester a lot more for the same energy and same volume.

The structure of the rock is destroyed by the process, it’ll just leak out.

That rock sequestered hydrocarbons from the biosphere for millions of years. It’s not destroyed by the process. We use comparable methods for the strategic petroleum reserve and the national helium reserve.

This whole scheme is a fever dream designed to continue burning fossil fuels

That may be true. And yet, when used with non-fossil fuel sources, it does, indeed, serve to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, rather than simply reducing the emission of CO2.

Ok… Come on now, I know you’ve been propagandized, and propaganda works, but let’s think this through

Please read what I wrote, not what you think I said.

If you capture CO2 out of smokestacks, what have you done?

It depends on where that carbon came from. If it came from petroleum or coal feedstocks, you’ve slightly reduced emissions. But, the carbon from biofuels originated from the atmosphere. Vegetation captured that CO2 directly from the atmosphere, and incorporated it into the biomass. Burning it converted the biomass into concentrated CO2 and H2O; we’re capturing the concentrated CO2 out of that stream.

Again: this does not replace the need to suspend fossil fuels. But the specific process I described does, indeed, extract CO2 from the biosphere.

If we plow the vegetation under, we are burying the hydrogen and excess oxygen as well as the carbon. Burning it, we release the hydrogen (as water), but still bury the carbon.

And all of the aside, this doesn’t math even if it worked. It takes too much energy to pull CO2 out of the air

They aren’t taking it out of the air. They are taking it out of smoke stacks. It’s far easier to pull it out of highly concentrated sources like smoke stacks than to try to pull it directly out of the atmosphere.

we’d have to put up CO2 condensers on a percentage of earths surface…

You’re describing biofuels. Vegetation “condenses” the CO2 out of the atmosphere, incorporating it into carbohydrates.

Burning biofuels, we produce H2O and CO2 in the smoke stacks. Every pound of CO2 pulled from the smoke stack is a pound removed from the atmosphere.

Any introduction of fossil fuels into the process defeats the purpose, but the underlying technology is theoretically feasible with biofuel carbon sources.

Your own fault for living west of your workplace.

They can’t have them coming home and sharing what they learned abroad.

That sure musta been something. I can only imagine.