https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/19/snp-chopped-down-16m-trees-develop-wind-farms-scotland/
In Scotland the government decided that it made perfect sense to cut down 16,000,000 trees so that they could install wind turbines. Strangely enough the Greens are quick to protest trees being cut down for lumber, or paper, but seem not to be bothered by this massive deforestation for wind turbines.
Let the bird slaughter begin.
60 comments:
Fact check, Scotland and trees:
Full Fact could find no evidence that there is a government order or directive to chop down 17 million trees. Scottish Forestry, the Scottish government agency responsible for forestry policy, told Full Fact that there was no directive from them to fell 17 million trees.
The claim may relate to the fact that 14 million trees were felled for wind farms in the 20 year period between the year 2000 and 2020—although this doesn’t take into account how many more were subsequently planted.
https://fullfact.org/online/scotland-17m-trees/
Fact check, birds and the "threat" of wind turbines:
Estimates of up to a million or more birds a year are killed by turbines in the US but that is far exceeded by collisions with communications towers (6.5 million); power lines, (25 million); windows (up to 1 billion); and cats (1.3 to 4.0 billion) and those lost due to habitat loss, pollution and climate change (American Bird Conservancy, Nature). Even if there were twenty times more wind turbines, enough to supply the US with electricity, the number of birds killed, assuming no improvement in wind turbine design, would be about 10 million--still far less than most other causes of bird deaths.
Birds are killed in collisions with communication towers, houses and cats at a FAR greater rate. Is your concern for birds making you want to remove these threats to birds, or are you just trying to make cheap partisan points without regards to the facts.
I'm glad to hear of your concern for birds. Will you be calling for more subterranean houses and a removal of communication towers?
I suspect you don't really care about bird deaths, though, do you?
Yes, I do have concern for needless bird deaths.
The point remains that Scotland cut down millions of trees to plant wind turbines, and the wind turbines do kill significant numbers of birds.
As per the title, the point is that the greens tend towards hypocrisy on these topics. Just like the greens advocate for electric cars, when the batteries cause far more harm to the environment and to the child (virtual) slave labor that goes into producing them. That's not even considering whether or not wind turbines can ever replace our current sources of electricity.
Seriously, what is the acceptable ratio of trees cut down to wind turbines? How lone exactly will it take for the unknown number of newly planted trees to take the place of the millions cut down?
1. Cutting down trees is not a problem, in and of itself. Trees don't live forever, they come and go. It's HOW and WHEN and WHERE you cut them down and if they're being replaced AND replaced at a sustainable pace with place-appropriate trees.
2. So, cutting down even TEN-twenty trees with no plans to replace them in a place needing more, not fewer trees, is problematic. Cutting down a million over a decade and replacing them as you go (and replacing with even more than the number cut down) is not problematic.
3. Also, cutting them down to have a greener, cleaner world (ie, solar panel field or wind turbines...) is one thing. Cutting them down to build a parking lot and more and more and wider and wider dysfunctional streets, that's a different thing.
4. How lone exactly will it take for the unknown number of newly planted trees to take the place of the millions cut down?
As you're probably adult enough to know, that depends upon the trees and the pace and place they're cutting them down. I have a (silver, I think) maple in my backyard that was a sapling when we moved in and towers over our house now, 23 years later.
5. So, in your concern for birds (and truly, good for you... I'm a bird lover, myself), are you also calling for removal of tall buildings? They kill WAY more birds than turbines. What is it about turbines in particular that you find problematic and not these other methods by which birds die - seeing as how you've never complained about the other ways that birds are killed at greater rates?
The point remains that Scotland cut down millions of trees to plant wind turbines, and the wind turbines do kill significant numbers of birds.
But, you're a more adult reason-er than that, aren't you? I mean, you DO recognize the problem with that reasoning?
One can say,
The point remains that Scotland cut down millions of trees to build houses and tall buildings, and those do kill significant numbers of birds in GREAT numbers...
Is that an argument AGAINST building houses and tall buildings?
Is that an argument that says those who are "okay" with building buildings are anti-environmental?
Do you see how this sounds like a rather grade-school level "complaint" about ONE human built structure by using birds as the "reasoning" for suggesting it's problematic, when that same person doesn't also complain about the buildings that kill even more?
I mean, if you want to start a conversation about greatly increasing the number of subterranean homes and buildings and designs in all structures that can be more bird-friendly, I'm right there with you.
If you're trying to point out some alleged hypocrisy in environmental types because they support turbines and solar farms, but you don't also complain about houses/buildings, then the hypocrisy would be on your part, wouldn't it?
what is the acceptable ratio of trees cut down to wind turbines?
Just to point out the problem with this reasoning:
The question about an "acceptable" ratio of trees cut down to houses or wind turbines will depend. It's not acceptable in most places to cut down more trees than are being planted. So the better question would be: What is the acceptable ratio of trees cut down to trees replaced? (1:1 + ...more in some places than others) At what rate should trees be cut down so that they can be sustainably replaced, allowing for the reality of the slow growth of most trees?
Adults working in these fields (I'm not one, but know many) can give you good answers to those questions, if you're interested.
Interesting. The notion that a newly planted tree will make up for the cutting down of a mature tree is an interesting notion. Given the reality that a transplanted tree will not grow significantly for several years, and a seedling will also take years to reach maturity, if in fact it does reach maturity, it seems as if there will be a significant deficit in terms of the amount of CO processed into oxygen for years if not decades.
"But, you're a more adult reason-er than that, aren't you? I mean, you DO recognize the problem with that reasoning?"
If you say so. I really don't see a problem at all. The cutting down of mature trees and the loss of their ability to transfer CO into O2, in order to put up inefficient wind turbines seems contradictory.
"Is that an argument AGAINST building houses and tall buildings?"
No. Buildings are not an inefficient means to generate electricity. Buildings provide shelter and homes for people, or places for people to work.
"Is that an argument that says those who are "okay" with building buildings are anti-environmental?"
No. As someone who's built numerous LEED certified homes, and multiple other homes that performed as well as LEED silver, I realize that it's relatively easy to get excellent energy efficiency while using traditional building methods for the most part.
"Do you see how this sounds like a rather grade-school level "complaint" about ONE human built structure by using birds as the "reasoning" for suggesting it's problematic, when that same person doesn't also complain about the buildings that kill even more?"
No. It's simply pointing out the apparent hypocrisy of cutting down millions of mature trees to build inefficient and expensive wind turbines with a limited life span and that can't be recycled when they reach the end of their useful life.
"I mean, if you want to start a conversation about greatly increasing the number of subterranean homes and buildings and designs in all structures that can be more bird-friendly, I'm right there with you."
The point is that the millions of trees cut down were bird and environmentally friendly, the wind turbines are not bird friendly and inefficient. The bird slaughter is just one more negative on the CBE of wind turbines.
"If you're trying to point out some alleged hypocrisy in environmental types because they support turbines and solar farms, but you don't also complain about houses/buildings, then the hypocrisy would be on your part, wouldn't it?"
No.
1. I guess it's only a problem when you don't like what's replacing the trees.
2. Except that doesn't account for the huge deficit in processing CO into O2 for decades, and for the reality that transplanted trees have an attrition rate.
3. Are solar and wind really significantly cleaner and greener, when the entirety of their production, land use, inefficiency, inability to replace existing electrical production,and inability to be recycled are factored in?
4. Obviously that is the case. However, you have to take into consideration the hardiness of the new trees, as well as the massive deficit in handling CO for the decades it'll take to grow to the equivalent of the trees cut down. As for your example, I guess that doesn't take into account the growth of the existing trees that were cut down over that 23 years. But of course, we should take your personal anecdote as being representative of some larger point.
5. No. Wind turbines are inefficient, unable to replace existing production, waste land that could be used for other purposes, and have relatively short useful lives and are virtually un recyclable. They are an inefficient way to generate electricity on a large scale, and they don't operate all the time. The needless bird slaughter is just one more negative.
So, taking a moment to check out the bird issue, the estimates put bird deaths from crashing into buildings around 3 million or so. I've not seen how they come to that number. But a few points to keep in mind:
1. It ain't the buildings, it's the birds not understanding the concept of windows.
2. I haven't seen numbers by species, but I doubt there are too many bald eagles, hawks, falcons, geese, ducks and other large birds dying in this manner. The vast majority are small birds (sparrows and such) which generally breed in large numbers. That is, these 3 million are likely constantly replenishing at rates far faster than the growth of trees cut down for any reason.
3. There are dozens of effective means by which we can reduce, if not totally eliminate the problem of birds crashing into windows, most of which are inexpensive and unlikely to obstruct one's view out their windows.
4. This isn't a problem for every building. I lived 35 years in the house we sold almost four years ago. I doubt we had a dozen birds smack our windows in that time...if that. None into the condo we rented for two years, and none in the townhouse we're now renting in the 15 months we've been here.
5. Windmills of the type in question here are not as plentiful as buildings, and as has been stated, their usefulness toward achieving their purpose is highly questionable.
6. As to large birds, wind turbines do great harm to them. The following is an article from 2013...when turbines weren't as many as now:
https://www.livescience.com/31995-how-do-wind-turbines-kill-birds.html
Note that bats are also victimized.
7. As Craig's comments factually present, the cost/benefit ratio in installing turbines which don't result in a cleaner environment after all makes the elimination of trees and/or farmland to do so an example typical of the lack of thought the modern progressive brings to the table.
Ah. So the point then is that in YOUR opinion (and presumably, you're not an expert in wind energy and the power grid, is that safe to say?), that YOU think that YOU personally don't believe in YOUR head that wind turbines are an efficient way to create green energy.
And that's fine. You don't have to think that in your head. You aren't required to listen to the experts in clean energy and the power grid. But that's the point: YOU personally don't think that turbines are an effective, efficient means of energy. Other actual experts disagree.
Then the question becomes, beyond YOU and what YOU personally think as a non-expert, should people in general listen to non-expert opinion or expert opinion?
Also, then, you are FINE with human built structures that might kill birds, you just personally, because of your personal, non-expert opinions about wind energy think that, in your head, wind turbines are a good source of energy. So, it's not really about the birds, it's about whether or not wind turbines are an effective energy source.
Is that fair?
The experts, then, on wind energy:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/06/whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-wind-turbine/
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/renewables/wind
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/documents/wind_turbines_fact_sheet_p100il8k.pdf
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8441949/
https://news.mit.edu/2022/wind-farm-optimization-energy-flow-0811
To answer your question about whether or not solar and wind energy significantly cleaner than fossil fuels, which are established to be not sustainable, the answer is Yes.
You didn't know this?
https://www.wri.org/insights/setting-record-straight-about-renewable-energy
Having said that, the best answers are probably in the form of REDUCING energy consumption, rather than trying to find replacements for fossil fuels. Walking more, mass transit, living in smaller circles, consuming LESS energy in the first place is almost certainly the greenest, healthiest answer.
Agreed?
And do you agree that fossil fuels are NOT part of the answer for the future of greener, more sustainable energy in the future?
Do you recognize, as the experts do, the EXTREME costs that our fossil fuel dependency is having upon the world in terms of dollars and lives?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/23/economy/extreme-heat-economic-impact/index.html
I'm not necessarily anti wind turbines as a source of electricity. I do have a problem with pretending that they are "green", efficient, or a replacement for existing sources of electricity.
"Do you recognize, as the experts do, the EXTREME costs that our fossil fuel dependency is having upon the world in terms of dollars and lives?"
If you say so. Of course I also recognize that wind and solar are completely incapable of meeting current needs and demand, let alone projected future demand. I recognize that our economy would be significantly negatively affected without access to the needed power. I recognize that we're already seeing power shortages in states where they depend on wind and solar. I recognize that various European countries are moving away from wind and solar. I recognize that since our bloated federal government relies on our economy performing at certain levels in order to pay it's bills, that any energy policy that negatively affects supply, will also negatively affect our economy, and negatively affect our government.
"You didn't know this?"
I know that all sorts of people make all sorts of claims based on all sorts of projections about what might happen in the future. I know that "renewable" energy has some significant negative effects on the environment, and supply. I'm sure you can find single issue, advocacy groups who'll tout some carefully selected projections to tell you what makes you happy.
"Agreed?"
In theory, I would agree that becoming more energy efficient is a good thing. I'm not sure about how y'all think you're going to force people to give up their freedom in order to get there.
"And do you agree that fossil fuels are NOT part of the answer for the future of greener, more sustainable energy in the future?"
Given the reality that nothing has yet been discovered that will take the place of fossil fuels, or that is not significantly more expensive than fossil fuels. this may be True at some point in the future, but not for the foreseeable near term.
"Then the question becomes, beyond YOU and what YOU personally think as a non-expert, should people in general listen to non-expert opinion or expert opinion?"
Neither. I think that it depends on how much land we are willing to preempt from other uses in order to cover it with wind or solar "farms". It depends of how cost effectively we can get that electricity to where it is needed. It depends on how much inefficiency we are willing to accept due to weather. It all depends of whether or not you consider that wind turbines have a limited lifespan, and end up in landfills. It depends on whether or not you consider the cost of replacing the turbines on a regular basis. It depends on how heavily you weight the suffering and environmental damage involved in producing these "green" alternatives.
"Is that fair?"
I've never seen you summarize anything I've ever said in a manner that could be considered "fair", this is no exception. But if you think that single issue advocacy groups, or people who are pre committed to "renewables", or people who's income is dependent of increased use of "renewables", are persuasive I can't help you. I'm simply applying the same standards you apply.
What's interesting in this debate is that it appears that the pro "renewable" folx choose to only focus on the impact of wind and solar after they are installed and producing. They don't look at the entire life cycle of the hardware. Where is it produced, what kind of labor conditions do those who produce the hardware endure, how much fossil fuels are needed to produce and transport the hardware, what happens at the end of it's service life, and what are the maintenance costs. It's easy to say that "renewables" are so awesome, when the focus is kept on only a part of the process.
What's interesting in this debate is that it appears that the pro "renewable" folx choose to only focus on the impact of wind and solar after they are installed and producing. They don't look at the entire life cycle of the hardware.
Dang. You caught us. We NEVER do any of that stuff, do we? We just focus on the results we want to focus on. You SO clever.
Do you even think about this nonsense before you post it? Do you think WE who are extremely concerned about environmental impact TRULY not consider all the costs? I mean, I'm sure there are low-level interest folks who take a casual snapshot of things without thinking about all the expenses.
But this is precisely one of the reasons why I still don't own an EV... because I'm looking at all the expenses involved, environmentally. And WHY do I do this? Am I some kind of outlier? No. I do it because other green-minded folks have pointed out the hidden expenses of green cars and so on.
Look, in ALL efforts of complexity, there will be conservatives and liberals who take a casual glance and pick up a casual amount of information. That's a given. Heck, it's why conservatives aren't thinking about the deeper implications of the conservative country singer's lynching song. They're not thinking deeply. It's why conservative idiots like De Santis are removing race- and LGBTQ-related history and reality from the classrooms, because they're taking a casual glance and not thinking deeply.
But don't presume that the actual experts and more serious-minded folks on topics don't pay attention to the details.
And speaking of... are YOU looking at the WHOLE life cycle of fossil fuel dependency? Are you counting the cost of the billions (trillions?) of dollars damage done by climate change from fossil fuels? The countless lives lost and damaged due to fossil fuel pollution and the resulting impact on our world and economy?
It would be easier to take you seriously on such points (there IS a lot to consider when we're talking about energy policy and it's not a simple Check Box of "Is it green or not?" to consider) IF you also took seriously the deadly and costly implications of our fossil fuel dependency and policies.
Do you see that you're doing precisely what you're suggesting we're doing? You got to count the costs, baby.
To just make clear my response to your post, which speaks of a "double standard..." and where you claimed...
Strangely enough the Greens are quick to protest trees being cut down for lumber, or paper, but seem not to be bothered by this massive deforestation for wind turbines.
The answer is:
1. There is no double standard: IF there is unnecessary and un-replaced tree removal happening, we consistently think that is a bad idea.
2. That isn't (apparently) what is happening with wind turbine installations... you've certainly not produced any evidence to support the claim, anyway.
3. Tree removal for paper is just not needed, there are other sources for paper material.
4. We're not opposed to tree removal for lumber. Of course. We BUY lumber. We just want tree harvesting to be done at a sustainable pace.
And there's nothing irrational about that, is there? Presumably, even YOU could support lumber production that is done sustainably and JOIN US in opposing lumber production that is not sustainable, right?
So, in short, no double standard. That you fail to understand and appreciate the nuances on your part is not an indication of a double standard on our part. We DO believe that wind energy is part of the energy solution and we believe it can be done sustainably.
You've produced nothing to suggest otherwise. Right?
I suspect what is happening here is that you just aren't fully informed on the topic and you're listening to conservative talking points rather than informed opinion.
I'm not sure about how y'all think you're going to force people to give up their freedom in order to get there.
What I would advocate (and the people I read, as well) is something closer to letting the Market make the case. But to do that, first we must remove/reduce the subsidies that encourage people to consume fossil fuels. Our fossil fuel costs are subsidized by the state and by the poor and marginalized and others who are harmed by unpaid-for expenses of fossil fuel hyper-consumption. If and when we Right-Price fossil fuel actual costs, then the Market will cause people to say, "Hell, no! I'm not going to pay the $15/gallon that gas ACTUALLY costs!" For instance.
Excellent plan, raising fuel, electricity prices to astronomical level, while using that to force people to live according to your views of what is best for others, sounds like a great plan. I'm sure that "the poor" will appreciate the massive rise in the price of everything, and being herded into an urban utopia, and forced to spend hours on public transit.
Sounds like a "simple" "agrarian" paradise to me.
"Do you see that you're doing precisely what you're suggesting we're doing?"
Not exactly. I'm not suggesting that we completely replace trillions of dollars of infrastructure, restructure our entire economy, count on inefficient electricity generation, and not account for increased demand for electricity. I am suggesting that you account for the damage that "renewables" do to people, the environment, and the economy.
"We NEVER do any of that stuff, do we?"
AL right, I stand corrected. I should have made it clear that you never deal with the whole picture. I should have known that you'd act like you represent some vast constituency.
Come to think of it, I've never seen anyone who's advocated for "renewables" actually deal with the environmental and human destruction inherent in all of your pet technologies.
I asked...
So, in your concern for birds (and truly, good for you... I'm a bird lover, myself), are you also calling for removal of tall buildings?
You responded...
No. Wind turbines are inefficient, unable to replace existing production, waste land that could be used for other purposes, and have relatively short useful lives and are virtually un recyclable. They are an inefficient way to generate electricity on a large scale, and they don't operate all the time. The needless bird slaughter is just one more negative.
Seeking clarification, I asked about this, saying...
then, you are FINE with human built structures that might kill birds...
I said THAT because YOU had said that the problem with wind turbines (and this, in your non-expert opinion) was that, you thought, they were "inefficient." So, you were saying you are NOT advocating removing buildings because they are useful - even though they kill way more birds that turbines, but you were saying that the killing of the birds was another reason not to like turbines, in addition to being inefficient.
So, when I said...
you just personally, because of your personal, non-expert opinions about wind energy think that, in your head, wind turbines are a good source of energy. So, it's not really about the birds, it's about whether or not wind turbines are an effective energy source.
and then I asked...
Is that fair?
You responded...
"I've never seen you summarize anything I've ever said in a manner that could be considered "fair", this is no exception.
But excuse me, but it sounds like that is EXACTLY what you're saying. YOU are willing to have bird deaths in the case of houses and other structures because, in your estimation, it's a worthwhile price to pay, but NOT in the case of wind turbines because it's NOT a worthwhile price to pay because, in your NON-Expert opinion, turbines were "inefficient."
That's a long way to go to say that much of the time that I point out something and ask you to confirm and you knee jerk respond with a "NO, that ISN'T what I was saying," the facts are that it was precisely (or at least approximately) what you were saying. Which just serves to point out the problem with conversations with you and your vague, non-answers and vague unsupported accusations or hints of accusations.
FYI.
"Do you even think about this nonsense before you post it?"
Yes. I look at what people who advocate "renewables" say, and I comment based on what I see.
"Do you think WE who are extremely concerned about environmental impact TRULY not consider all the costs?"
Well, I don't think that you have been anointed to speak for some grand, unidentified, vague "WE" for starters. Based on what you and others like you write and say publicly, I would say that if you are concerned about the negatives, you are concerned in an exceedingly silent manner.
"And WHY do I do this? Am I some kind of outlier?"
I have no idea about the answers to these rhetorical questions. What I do know is that I've never once seen you write a word on the huge negatives associated with the technology you tout as our salvation. You bitch about subsidizing fossil fuels, yet I'd argue that the governments where the minerals that are necessary for this tech are subsidizing the extraction of these minerals. Through allowing "slave" labor, and enforcing no environmental restrictions of the producers they effectively subsidize the raw materials. Leaving aside the fact that many (most) of the nations where these minerals are mined are oppressive.
So, I wouldn't attempt to speak for you, but I can point out the reality that you've been silent on the dark side of renewables. BTW, how many of your comments are made on a smart phone which had the "benefit" of slave or forced labor and minimal environmental standards imposed on the maker or suppliers?
"Heck, it's why conservatives aren't thinking about the deeper implications of the conservative country singer's lynching song. They're not thinking deeply. It's why conservative idiots like De Santis are removing race- and LGBTQ-related history and reality from the classrooms, because they're taking a casual glance and not thinking deeply."
Speaking of getting one's information from an ideological echo chamber, and not thinking deeper.
"But excuse me, but it sounds like that is EXACTLY what you're saying. YOU are willing to have bird deaths in the case of houses and other structures because, in your estimation, it's a worthwhile price to pay, but NOT in the case of wind turbines because it's NOT a worthwhile price to pay because, in your NON-Expert opinion, turbines were "inefficient.""
No, that's not what I've said.
The reality is that when compared to virtually any other method of generating electricity, wind turbines are inefficient and incapable of replacing existing power generating capacity. The fact that y'all are prepared to sacrifice birds on this alter of wind power, is just amusing.
FYI, when a wind turbine is sitting motionless, how much power does it generate?
The fact that y'all are prepared to sacrifice birds on this alter of wind power, is just amusing.
Do you have ANY idea how many people - that is HUMAN PEOPLE, not simply birds - are dying on the altar of fossil fuels?
That's not amusing at all. It's just pathetic.
How many HUMANS have wind turbines killed?
Get serious.
And indeed, the ALTER of wind turbines. Where specifically did you get your degree in energy and power studies? What's that? You HAVE no expertise in these fields?
And we should listen to you... WHY?
What I do know is that I've never once seen you write a word on the huge negatives associated with the technology you tout as our salvation.
I've never once posted a post on my blog "touting" wind or solar power. I HAVE consistently argued for the ONE thing we know works most efficiently: Using less, consuming less, setting up systems that promote using less, living in smaller circles.
So before you make accusations, you should understand reality a bit better. Your ignorance is showing through.
On the wrong post, you suggested I was ignoring the allegedly "inefficencies" of wind energy. You cite NO experts to support whatever you think in your head about the topic, but googling inefficiency and wind energy, here are the responses I find:
However, the post is wrong. Wind turbines recoup the energy required to build them within a year of normal operation, according to researchers.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/06/07/fact-check-wind-turbines-quickly-recoup-energy-used-make-them/9542766002/
and...
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-windturbines-misleadingmeme/fact-check-meme-claiming-that-wind-turbines-are-inefficient-misquotes-expert-idUSL1N2R31IG
So, I don't know what you think you, in your non-expert, non-researched status THINK you know, but is it possible you've been listening to more fake news?
More data from actual experts:
Wind power must compete with other low-cost energy sources. When comparing the cost of energy associated with new power plants,
wind and solar projects are now more economically competitive
than gas, geothermal, coal, or nuclear facilities.
However, wind projects may not be cost-competitive in some locations that are not windy enough.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy
and...
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1086790531/renewable-energy-projects-wind-energy-solar-energy-climate-change-misinformation
So, where precisely are you getting your "inefficency" hunches supported? COAL.COM? Q-Anon? Are you passing on misinformation? Maybe if you define what you mean when you say "inefficient," and what your source for your data (if you have any)? Or is it just a hunch you have based on a gut feeling and an overwhelming love of birds?
On those lines, there's THIS information about which energy fields REALLY kill birds off...
Solar: Anywhere from about 1,000 birds a year...
Wind: Between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year in the contiguous United States...
Oil and Gas: An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds a year are killed in oil fields...
Coal: Huge numbers of birds, roughly 7.9 million, may be killed by coal...
Nuclear: About 330,000 birds...
Power Lines: Between 12 and 64 million birds a year are felled by transmission lines...
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds
No time to go through all the comments since I last checked in, but I'd wager Dan didn't study, if he even took any time to read, any of the links he posted. All Dan needs is an indication his position is getting validation and it becomes gospel evidence of his marxist views.
"I've never once posted a post on my blog "touting" wind or solar power."
Interesting, you seem to be saying that unless you "post" something "on your blog", that you have not ever "tout"ed that topic. Interesting, you've spent this entire thread espousing the wonders of wind and solar, but that doesn't count.
"I HAVE consistently argued for the ONE thing we know works most efficiently: Using less, consuming less, setting up systems that promote using less, living in smaller circles."
Yes, I know that you would like to impose these hunches about how it's best for others to live, and how people's freedom to choose the lifestyle they want to live should be curtailed.
"So before you make accusations, you should understand reality a bit better. Your ignorance is showing through."
I'm confused. You literally have not shown me one example of you addressing the negative aspects of "renewables", after that I pointed out that I had never once seen you address the negative side of "renewables". You've literally demonstrated that what I said was correct.
"Do you have ANY idea how many people - that is HUMAN PEOPLE, not simply birds - are dying on the altar of fossil fuels?"
No, and I suspect that you don't either. I suspect that you can dredge up a link that associates all sorts of random deaths to "fossil fuels" regardless of how tenuous the link is.
"How many HUMANS have wind turbines killed?"
No idea.
"And indeed, the ALTER of wind turbines. Where specifically did you get your degree in energy and power studies? What's that? You HAVE no expertise in these fields?"
For someone who has literally none of these qualifications, it's amusing that you try to play this credentialsim game, as if it's impossible to know enough to form an opinion without some random credentials. Since you have none of the credentials, you claim are necessary, then you should probably just stop now.
And we should listen to you... WHY?
July 24, 2023 at 2:13 PM Delete
Blogger Craig said...
"And we should listen to you... WHY?"
1. Where exactly have I said that anyone should "listen to" me on this topic?
2. "And we should listen to you...WHY? Given your total lack of the credentials you seem to require.
3. If an "expert" has a financial interest in a particular technology being sold more extensively, can they really be considered to be unbiased?
July 24, 2023 at 2:17 PM Delete
Blogger Craig said...
It's amazing how quickly this has degenerated into Dan failing to acknowledge the negative impact of cutting down millions of trees for inefficient wind turbines, and the hypocrisy implicit in those actions, into Dan trying to exclude anyone who doesn't have some random credentials that he just pulled from his ass from having an opinion on the topic.
After the hundreds of comment threads recently where he waited until later to push things off topic, I actually appreciate him coming right out of the gate and going off topic right away. It means, I can stop parsing his off topic comments that much sooner.
2. "And we should listen to you...WHY? Given your total lack of the credentials you seem to require.
I have 17 years of experience working in the utilities field (providing mapping services, so utilities-adjacent) and several masters-level classes in environmental education and urban planning.
I have a close friend for the last 30 years who is in the hydro electricity business and we have had intense discussions on these areas (especially solar and hydro) and, for what it's worth, even though he makes his living from this area, he is certainly reputable and trustworthy.
Because of my education and interest in the area and work in services adjacent to these areas, I'm not a novice on the topic, although I'm certainly not an expert, either.
What I have found is that people who enter these fields are doing so because they're seeking a better, healthier world, NOT just trying to make money and motivation for the work one does DOES make a difference when talking about the topic.
It's amazing that any time Dan plays the credentialism game, he magically manages to conjure up some credentials that might, almost be in the field of the topic.
Of course, you unknown friend who's "in the hydro electricity business" (doing what we don't know) is now automatically an expert in wind and solar, how convenient.
So, a Dr who takes money from a cigarette is completely untrustworthy, but people who make their living from various "renewable" energy sources are completely trustworthy. We should simply accept Dan's word when he speaks for these mystery experts, as well as Dan's word that the small number of classes he took, just happened to be exactly on this topic.
https://changeoracle.com/2022/07/20/nuclear-power-versus-renewable-energy/
https://sustainablereview.com/nuclear-energy-is-better-than-solar-and-wind
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-the-best-path-to-a-low-carbon-future-is-not-wind-or-solar-power/
https://blog.ecoflow.com/us/wind-power-vs-solar-energy/
"Wind turbines are between 20% and 40% efficient when generating usable electricity." Name any standard by which 40% efficiency is considered efficient?
"The average efficiencies of power generation are 35% for coal, 45% for natural gas and 38% for oil-fired power generation."
So, wind and solar are at best equal in efficiency with coal and oil, and less efficient than natural gas. This likely doesn't take into account that the efficiency of wind and solar are not constant due to weather conditions.
As far as bird deaths go.
1. Natural selection says that birds who can't avoid obstacles are going to die.
2. The best data I saw on numbers of birds killed by turbines was from like 2012, so that's fairly worthless.
3. As you note, power lines kill more birds that turbines, yet turbines require much greater lengths of power lines due to their locations.
4. The only way to accurately compare buildings and turbines would to to determine the number of dead birds per unit so as to factor in the fact that there are more buildings than turbines.
5. None of this mitigates the reality that y'all are perfectly happy to build more turbines and more power lines which will kill more birds in the name of protecting the environment.
It's always amusing when you show your complete lack of grace by acting as if the occasional mistake or typo is somehow a big deal. If this is how you roll, I'll be happy to make a bigger deal out of your typos and mistakes.
To answer an earlier question about human deaths due to fossil fuel pollution:
The number is that there are millions of people who die or die early or who are harmed by fossil fuel pollution. Depending on what you're counting and how you're counting, that number might range from 1-8 million human beings dying from air pollution and more being harmed/sickened by it.
Are you okay with trying to factor in ways to account for the FULL life span costs of fossil fuel consumption?
Because it is a given that of course I and the environmentalists of the world want to factor in ALL costs from hydro, solar, wind turbine, nuclear and fossil fuels.
We just don't want to try to boost the costs for greener energies and ignoring the costs of fossil fuels because that would be foolish.
As to my actually having some degree of expertise in those areas I speak about regularly, well, of course, I try to be informed and educated and stick to mostly what I'm well-read in, have experience in or educated upon or have researched and listened to research. Because of course, I do.
Other than reading a few articles that confirm your partisan bias against more green energy, do you have any significant experience or knowledge? Did you start with your bias against wind, solar, etc and then sudden "find" "data" to support your biases or did you start out believing that these might be good options and your inexpert reading has led you to change your mind?
OR, is it possible you've actually taken classes, done research, worked in the fields and have experience?
My dear friend for over half of my life is an engineer and a genius and he has taken old, abandoned hydro dams and refurbished them, bringing them on-line and on to the energy grid. He has built hydro dams from scratch. He did this all for years where he was making no money. Money wasn't the point, he believed in the cause.
And why did he believe in the cause? Studying energy policies and energy sources IS his field of expertise. Again, in the helping fields (nursing, teaching, social work, environmental work, mental health work) it should not be surprising that good numbers of people who find work in these areas do so NOT because they're seeking the almighty dollar, but because they believe in doing good work that makes the world a better place.
Such people are not prone to making stuff up to enrich themselves. This guy, for instance, with his genius and degree, could have gotten relatively rich by going the traditional engineering route. He didn't do that.
It's always amusing when your lack of grace assumes/suggests that all people are as greedy as maybe you think they are.
What typo have I said was a big deal? The only typo I referenced wad the Alter, which I used NOT to belittle you, but to make a pun about altering the way we live and encourage responsible energy policy.
It's not all about you, my friend.
Dan
"It's not all about you, my friend."
Theoretically since it's my blog, it should be at least a little about me, but I've come to realize that it's usually more about you.
"Are you okay with trying to factor in ways to account for the FULL life span costs of fossil fuel consumption?"
Sure. As long as you factor in the reality that the world economy is built on fossil fuels, and to remove them without an adequate replacement would do incalculable damage. Beyond that consider the almost miraculous change in the poorest parts of the world and the drastic drop in both extreme hunger and poverty. Let's consider that the welfare state/government spending would evaporate without fossil fuels. Affordable food, not without fossil fuels. Standard of living, goes down without fossil fuels. The reality is that while it's possible to cobble together a litany of the apparent horrors the can tangentially be related to fossil fuels, you'd have to balance them against the millions who'd likely have died in various natural disasters over the years because the ships and airplanes that provide relief, run on fossil fuels.
"Other than reading a few articles that confirm your partisan bias against more green energy, do you have any significant experience or knowledge?"
Yes, I've also done my share of research.
"Did you start with your bias against wind, solar, etc and then sudden "find" "data" to support your biases or did you start out believing that these might be good options and your inexpert reading has led you to change your mind?"
No, I actually believe that wind and solar are viable solutions on a small scale. I believe that micro scale wind and solar could transform places like Haiti. I believe that having blackouts and brownouts because the "renewables" can't provide enough electricity or don't work because of the weather isn't a good thing. I believe that the thought of dumping hundreds of thousands of old wind turbines in landfills is a shitty idea. I believe that solar panels that get destroyed by storms, aren't a good way to provide reliable power. I do believe that there will be a tipping point when some technology will supplant fossil fuels, because the new technology actually works better and is cost effective.
You don't like subsidies for fossil fuels (although those are more for production, which employs people who pay taxes and support the things you want government to do. Of course eliminating production would simply add thousands/millions of more people to the ranks of the unemployed), yet I haven't heard you object to subsidies for "renewables". The feds give out millions in tax breaks for electric cars, and in home solar. We talked about how the oppressive countries that are a vital part of the supply chain for all these "renewables" effectively subsidize the extraction of the raw materials by allowing virtual slave labor, child labor, low pay, few or no environmental regulations, etc.
The problem is that I really believe that it's likely impossible to accurately measure the "complete" cost of either fossil fuels or "renewables". The reality is that we as a nation do not have the money to engage in a wholesale transition away from fossil fuels since there is currently no adequate replacement.
Maybe you'd like having more blackouts/brownouts so people would be forced to cut back and lower their standard of living. I get that you are ideologically committed to this agenda, and probably haven't thought about the costs of transition or who the pain of a transition would fall most heavily on.
Just one example. Electric cars (with all of the negatives that accompany them) cost roughly $50,000 new. The battery packs cost between $5,000 and $16,000 depending on the car. So even if there were enough used electrics, that were inexpensive enough for the poor to afford, they'd still be likely looking at a big bill at some point in the future. They are already subsidized, but how does someone making $40,000 per year $20/hr, afford a $50,000 car? No problem, they can take the bus or the choo choo. Well the bus and choo choo have fixed to relatively fixed routes, and often add more than an hour each way to someone's commute. Oh, and buses and choo choos, run on fossil fuels and are massively subsidized as well.
I'm sure that someone with all of your book learnin' and massively intelligent friends can solve these problems just like magic.
OR, is it possible you've actually taken classes, done research, worked in the fields and have experience?
FYI, when I get my dream spread, I plan on installing some combination of solar and wind along with a generator, to supplement the electricity I'd get from the grid.
This whole discussion comes down to unintended consequences. Much like the $15+/hr minimum wage has resulted in ordering kiosks in fast food restaurants which allow them to hire fewer employees, this push to technology that can't replace the existing power generating capability is going to have significant unintended consequences. To fail to even try to plan for those seems foolish.
I believe that having blackouts and brownouts because the "renewables" can't provide enough electricity or don't work because of the weather isn't a good thing.
I'm glad you recognize to some degree the viability of greener energy. But it's when you say idiot stuff like this above that makes it sound like you're listening to Coal Company bumper stickers and not research.
Do you think that, with the ability to get, say, 50% of our needs from wind/solar, that we're going to say, "Great! We're done! Turn off all fossil fuel sources!"? Do you know of ANYONE who's advocating this?
This is not a thing in the real world. The experts are talking quite clearly about BUILDING infrastructure and capability so we can phase out fossil fuels, not cut ourselves off like an out-of-control addict so we can suffer in our mess. Because it's the POOR and marginalized who would suffer in that scenario, so it's just NOT something anyone serious is talking about. Given that reality, why do you make this nonsense claim?
Yes, yes, yes. Unintended consequences. But we MUST pay attention to ALL the unintended consequences of all energy sources. Like the millions who are dying and the millions more who are suffering and the billions (trillions?) we're having to pay to continue our addiction to fossil fuel as a source.
Do you agree that we MUST pay attention to that side of the equation, as well?
Again, when you say things like "Well, there will be more birds who will die with wind turbines..." while ignoring the millions of HUMANS dying from fossil fuels.
I just heard another news report about the unintended consequences of climate change causing unintended changes in weather patterns causing in increased volatility in our weather which is resulting in insurance for houses skyrocketing. That, too, is a cost.
"I'm glad you recognize to some degree the viability of greener energy. But it's when you say idiot stuff like this above that makes it sound like you're listening to Coal Company bumper stickers and not research."
Oh, thank you, it means so much when you offer these tepid affirmations. Of course I believe that "renewables" have a place in a larger energy supply policy. I don't believe that they can replace the existing sources, and likely will never be able to. Nor do I anticipate significant increases in efficiency. Then you would be wrong again.
"Do you think that, with the ability to get, say, 50% of our needs from wind/solar, that we're going to say, "Great! We're done! Turn off all fossil fuel sources!"? Do you know of ANYONE who's advocating this?"
Great questions, I have no idea. It's not something that I've seen addressed much publicly. What I do hear are the idiotic promises to get to 100% "renewable" by some random date in the future.
"Given that reality, why do you make this nonsense claim?"
I'm not sure I actually made this claim. However, when MN passes a law committing to "carbon free" utilities by 2050 without any actual plan to do so, it does seem like plenty of folx in positions of power are making these promises.
"Again, when you say things like "Well, there will be more birds who will die with wind turbines..." while ignoring the millions of HUMANS dying from fossil fuels."
Well, that's not the reality, so that's a problem. I am pointing out the hypocrisy in advocating for wind turbines and power lines that will kill more birds, and deforesting large areas of land to erect wind turbines. That's it. The rest of that shit is just shit you made up.
"I just heard another news report about the unintended consequences of climate change causing unintended changes in weather patterns causing in increased volatility in our weather which is resulting in insurance for houses skyrocketing. That, too, is a cost."
Oh, if you "heard another news report", then it must be 100% objectively True and beyond any questioning. Especially as you list no source or details. I guess we'll just have to trust you.
Oh, thank you, it means so much when you offer these tepid affirmations.
Not meaning for it to be especially tepid. I AM glad to find common ground where it can be had. But the science on this point is not in question. The HUGE, MASSIVE expenses of our fossil fuel dependency is not in question. And yes, there are some benefits to our use of fossil fuels, as well, but amongst experts, it's not really in question that the net expenses and deadly costs have long outpaced the benefits, so environmentally concerned experts and really saying we need to be pushing far beyond tiny little gains and small attempts at mitigating the massive financial, societal and human expenses of fossil fuel hyper-consumption.
So I AM glad you can find some room for greener energies, and I agree with the experts who are pushing for far more than tepid little steps weaning us off our ff dependency.
Great questions, I have no idea. It's not something that I've seen addressed much publicly.
Well, you SHOULD have a good idea. You're not stupid or unable to understand complex scenarios. By and large, the SAME people who want a cleaner, greener world are the SAME people who want a healthier, safer world and the SAME people who want a world that is helping the poor and marginalized. IF there were a policy promoted that said, "We can entirely cut our fossil fuel dependency, BUT, millions of poor and marginalized people will die," WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT the latter outcome. It is a given that we don't want harm done to the poor and marginalized. ANY rational person who is well-read and understands what progressives are actually advocating should know this. It shouldn't even be a question. That it IS a question is an indication that you are not reading enough about what progressive people are actually promoting and that you are listening too much to what conservative echo chambers are saying.
I can't tell you strongly enough how deeply foolish that belief is, and that you are entertaining it as, "Well, who knows? Maybe the Left IS okay with policy that causes mass harm to the poor and marginalized..." does not speak well of you. That is NOT in question.
So, I hate to be so hard on you, but at least NOW do you understand how deeply foolish that notion is? Do you understand that you can abandon it as a talking point?
At the very least, you can frame it as "And how will this impact the poor and marginalized?" THAT is always a welcome and helpful question and one that we on the Left LOVE and welcome!
Do you understand that now?
f you "heard another news report", then it must be 100% objectively True and beyond any questioning. Especially as you list no source or details. I guess we'll just have to trust you.
Well, it's not really big news or surprising. It's been talked about for several years now and is an obvious effect of our hyper-consumption of fossil fuels and the to-be-expected results from that level of pollution and devastation to our planet. I'm curious: Are you really SURPRISED to learn that insurance companies are raising rates a great deal due to the impact of climate change on our weather patterns?
Over the past two years, several big insurers, including Allstate and State Farm, have scaled back their home insurance businesses in California to avoid paying billions for wildfire damage, or have halted sales of new policies altogether...
California isn't alone. Insurance companies in states like Colorado, Louisiana and Florida are paring down business to shield themselves from ballooning losses as climate change fuels more-intense disasters. Earlier this month, the insurance arm of AAA announced it would not renew some "higher exposure" home insurance policies in Florida, and Farmers Insurance announced it will stop offering new home insurance policies in the state and won't renew thousands of existing ones, in part because of rising losses from hurricanes...
The average price of home insurance has risen by 21% nationwide since 2015...
States that are more vulnerable to climate-driven disasters such as wildfires and hurricanes have seen even bigger increases. In Texas and Colorado, the average cost of home insurance has risen about 40% since 2015. In Florida, the statewide average is 57% higher than it was seven years ago. And in some of the hardest-hit areas, premiums have doubled or even tripled in the wake of major storms and fires.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/22/1186540332/how-climate-change-could-cause-a-home-insurance-meltdown
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/06/28/how-to-lower-home-insurance-costs/70359055007/
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/07/climate-change-is-making-some-homes-too-costly-to-insure.html
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/11/03/with-climate-impacts-growing-insurance-companies-face-big-challenges/
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/property-premiums-skyrocket-during-climate-crisis
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/climate-change-and-p-and-c-insurance-the-threat-and-opportunity
There are stories in that list going back to 2020. I'm certain that this has been talked about for years before that. This is not new news.
However, when MN passes a law committing to "carbon free" utilities by 2050 without any actual plan to do so, it does seem like plenty of folx in positions of power are making these promises.
Two things:
1. Change doesn't come without plans and incentives. Setting goals and figuring out how to reach them are part of progress.
2. I don't follow Minnesota policies closely, but it appears they DO have plans in place. And that includes plans that the energy companies appear to think are do-able. Just fyi.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) submitted written testimony to the Minnesota legislature in support of House File 7 and its companion bill, Senate File 4. We emphasized how multiple studies have shown that standards such as Minnesota’s proposal to reach 100-percent carbon-free electricity by 2040 are achievable and will produce tremendous benefits for Minnesota and other states.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/james-gignac/minnesota-will-this-be-the-year-for-a-100-percent-carbon-free-electricity-policy/
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/02/02/minnesota-is-poised-to-require-carbonfree-electricity-what-does-that-mean
I am 100% in favor of doing research and putting well-researched plans into place with room to make adjustments as we learn what is and isn't working. That is the Way of progress. Businesses do this all the time and there, often only for the goal of making more money. This is to improve the health of God's Good Earth and save lives, especially the poor and marginalized who tend to be harmed by pollution-led policies.
But hoping that we aren't too devastated by climate change on pollution or hoping that maybe the MARKET will come up with some solution magically, well, that's just wishful thinking, isn't it?
I'm sorry, I must have missed the irrefutable direct link between these natural events, and man caused global warning. From what I've seen a significant number of the fires are started by human carelessness or intentionally, and part of the reason the fires are worse is the lack of properly caring for forests. I also remember seeing that hurricanes have actually dropped in numbers recently.
It's interesting that when skeptics point out things like high levels of ice, temperatures dropping from previous levels, and fewer hurricanes, the response is always something like-"You can't use examples of weather to make points about the climate.". Yet isn't climate really weather over time? It's especially strange to hear assertions that we are warmer now that we were 150 years ago, while using examples from places that we don't have accurate records as our baseline.
But, clearly we must simply accept Dan's articles as 100% perfect Truth and not to be questioned in any detail.
Thanks for trying to explain away the tepid compliment, by adding condescension to the tepid compliment.
I must have missed the irrefutable direct link between these natural events, and man caused global warning.
And THIS is the problem.
It's a given, a known thing that anthropogenic climate change is a reality.
It's a known thing that this climate change is having an impact upon our weather.
It's a known thing that these impacts have MASSIVE human, societal and financial expenses/costs.
That you aren't up on what the experts understand or that you don't believe the experts is a problem in our nation and world. Don't be part of the regress. Be part of progress.
clearly we must simply accept Dan's articles as 100% perfect Truth and not to be questioned in any detail.
It has nothing to do with Dan in the slightest. Dan is not a climatologist, nor is Craig. It has EVERYTHING to do with what the vast majority of climatologists are telling us. The question remains: Do we listen to experts or conspiracy theorists without any real experience or knowledge?
It has nothing to do with Dan in the slightest. It has to do with the objective numbers. Disastrous weather HAS increased, as climatologists suggested the data had shown that it would. The resulting disastrous weather HAS impacted humanity and had a real cost in measurable lives and dollars, as economists listening to the experts had warned about. The question remains: Do we listen to experts or conspiracy theorists without any real experience or knowledge?
It has nothing to do with Dan in the slightest. It has to do with the REAL, objective, measurable costs that are happening from insurance companies who are looking at the bottom line and saying, "We have to increase our rates, we can't afford this any more... we don't know or care what the cause is, the reality is, disastrous weather events are costing us billions to cover and we have to change our rates to meet the new reality." The question remains: Do we listen to experts or conspiracy theorists without any real experience or knowledge?
So, when conspiracy theorists try to dismiss the data by attributing the concerns raised to "Dan" and people like him, they are exposing their complicity in ignoring the data, ignoring the research, ignoring the experts and just listening to tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists and their partisan complaints IN FACE of the real world data.
At the very least, a rational person would not try to blame "Dan" and people who are listening to the experts, they would address what the experts are saying. Trying to dilute the message by blaming "Dan" is infantile, not adult reasoning.
Be a better adult, Craig. If you don't want to be condescended towards, act more like an adult in conversations. You are better than this, you are able to understand data and reasoning better than this.
"Do we listen to experts or conspiracy theorists without any real experience or knowledge?"
Interesting that scientists or researchers who don't follow the narrative Dan has accepted, are automatically "conspiracy theorists without any real experience or knowledge."
"It has to do with the objective numbers. Disastrous weather HAS increased, as climatologists suggested the data had shown that it would."
Really, you are really saying that all of the predictions of climate disaster have all been proven 100% True? Are you really claiming that we have perfectly accurate records from the entire planet from 250+ years ago? Interesting that weather proves the climate prediction when you think it helps your case, but not when it doesn't help the narrative.
"The resulting disastrous weather HAS impacted humanity and had a real cost in measurable lives and dollars, as economists listening to the experts had warned about."
Yes, weather has historically impacted humanity negatively. It seems like one reason why the impact seems greater now is increased population and development.
"The question remains: Do we listen to experts or conspiracy theorists without any real experience or knowledge?"
See my answer above. The real question is whether or not we listen to experts who go against the narrative, evaluate their work, and give it consideration or do we automatically dismiss them as "conspiracy theorists" and lacking "experience or knowledge"?
"Do we listen to experts or conspiracy theorists without any real experience or knowledge?
"It's a given, a known thing that anthropogenic climate change is a reality."
This is one of my favorite rhetorical tricks Dan uses. Instead of providing actual irrefutable proof of a direct link between human activity and climate variations, he simply labels it "a given". As if simply labeling something "a given", or "reality" or any of the other synonyms Dan uses, makes it unassailable, objective Truth which doesn't need to be proven.
I'll simply point out that the Union of Concerned Scientists is a single issue advocacy group of the type Dan regularly dismisses as biased and unreliable as a source.
"This is to improve the health of God's Good Earth and save lives, especially the poor and marginalized who tend to be harmed by pollution-led policies."
Because the "poor and marginalized" won't be harmed by the huge gas tax increase than MN just passed. Nor will the "poor and marginalized" be affected by the inevitable increase in the price of utilities and the decrease in service". Because the "poor and marginalized" will be able to afford the inevitable coming mandate to replace their gas stoves and water heaters with electric, and the increased expenses of operating electric appliances over gas.
"But hoping that we aren't too devastated by climate change on pollution or hoping that maybe the MARKET will come up with some solution magically, well, that's just wishful thinking, isn't it?"
No. Given the reality that the US isn't even close to one of the top polluting countries. So, even if y'all can force us into some kind of green panacea it still won't make a significant dent in the global situation. It will continue to make the US less competitive against other countries who don't impose extra costs and burdens on their businesses.
Instead of providing actual irrefutable proof of a direct link between human activity and climate variations, he simply labels it "a given".
Again, I'm merely citing the reality of the vast majority of climatologists and their expert opinion on the topic. You have not cited any scientists.
And I'm not saying (look at my words, it's literally not there) that any scientists who disagree with the dominant scientific opinion on the matter are conspiracy theorists. I'm not generally talking about scientists who know what they're speaking about having a different opinion. I'm talking about the people like you who are NOT experts and who are suggesting that the dominant accepted science on the topic is wrong, NOT because you're an expert, but because you "disagree..." and you regularly use rhetorical tools to suggest that maybe these climate experts are part of a conspiracy to make stuff up NOT because of the data, but to get rich or make money or otherwise, for unscientific reasoning. THAT is conspiratorial. Literally.
Read for understanding, brother.
It will continue to make the US less competitive against other countries who don't impose extra costs and burdens on their businesses.
Yeah, well, that's a cute little unsupported opinion you have there. God bless your little punkin heart.
You gotta count the costs, son. ALL the costs, not just the ones you prefer.
won't be harmed by the huge gas tax increase than MN just passed. Nor will the "poor and marginalized" be affected by the inevitable increase in the price of utilities and the decrease in service". Because the "poor and marginalized" will be able to afford the inevitable coming mandate to replace their gas stoves and water heaters with electric, and the increased expenses of operating electric appliances over gas.
Case in point: YES, these are costs to be counted. Along with the climate change costs, the air pollution costs, the degraded neighborhood costs, the other various and many ways that the poor pay a poverty tax for the policies that benefit the wealthier ones.
You gotta count ALL the costs.
Here's a question to ponder, though: IF a given state had gas tax increases to pay for some of these real costs and IF that state said, "But here's a discount or payback we're proposing to give to the poor to offset those increased expenses..." WHICH party is it, do you think, who would oppose offsetting those costs? (HINT: It's not the Democrats and their initials start with G.O.P.)
Instead of providing actual irrefutable proof of a direct link between human activity and climate variations, he simply labels it "a given".
It IS a given amongst the experts. Those experts include:
NASA
EPA
NOAA
The Institute of Physics
IMF
The US Department of Defense
American Meteorological Society
The UN
American Association for the Advancement of Science
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming
https://www.esa.org/blog/2016/06/31-scientific-societies-letter-on-global-climate-change/
I could go on. And on and on. So yes, climate change and human causation is relatively settled (with some good faith disagreement on the extent and what can be measured and how).
So, the question is, why should we agree with the outliers? Why do you? Do you fully understand all the science involved?
Excellent job of pulling out the condescension, and of not providing the specific proof that I asked for because "scientists" say so.
"So, the question is, why should we agree with the outliers?"
Well, if "the outliers" haven't been unequivocally proven to be 100% incorrect, why would you simply dismiss them. Neither Science nor Truth are decided by majority vote.
"Why do you?"
Because I'm not the type to believe something because my betters tell me to.
"Do you fully understand all the science involved?"
No, but neither do you. This inference that it is necessary to "fully understand" a topic before one can express an opinion on that topic is an absurd standard, and one that literally no one on earth actually meets.
"WHICH party is it, do you think, who would oppose offsetting those costs?"
Given the fact that your fantasy scenario is just that, there literally is no way to answer accurately.
Given the fact that the GOP generally supports less taxation, tax credits, and tax cuts, it seems reasonable that (depending on details, which you fantasy lacks) the GOP would support this fantasy scenario.
as usual, this is one more example of you constructing a fantasy scenario which is constructed only to force people to give the answer you've predetermined to be the correct answer, and therefore is simply stupid.
Dan doesn't know jack regarding the details of any source or link he cites. As is true regarding all other issues, he simply cites by headline. If the headline suggests agreement with his agenda, the article below it contains nothing but the irrefutable gospel of whatever crap angle Dan wishes was true.
Dan speaks of "outliers", as if those who disagree are none other than the odd opponent to the narrative Dan swallows like a pig eating slop. Yet throughout history, much of our science...regardless of the exact field...is the result of an "outlier" finally being proven correct.
As regards "climate science", there are many who do nothing to discover the truth, but simply...intentionally or otherwise...lend their name to the group getting the most attention, thereby inflating the numbers of those who speak of "outliers", who simply aren't on board.
Common sense demonstrates easily the fraud of the current climate science narrative. Dan prefers so much which is fraudulent. He's mentally clownish.
Post a Comment