Rick Perry wants to talk with AOC about GND (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 07:00:44 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Rick Perry wants to talk with AOC about GND (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Rick Perry wants to talk with AOC about GND  (Read 1830 times)
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


« on: March 14, 2019, 12:10:35 PM »

We don’t need environmentalists writing environmental policy (or fossil fuels lobbyists for that matter) any more than we need Evangelical Christians writing religious freedom laws.

Pushing this policy as anything more than an aspirational document will be harmful to the left.  It is underlain with the less savory aspects of scientism which has too many things in common with religious fundamentalism.  Most people wont play along. 

They know this, which is why the powerful environmentalist interests are trying to litigate the GND into law through the courts.  Thry’ve said themselves that while cooperation of elected officials and popular support would be nice, it isn’t necessary. 
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2019, 11:24:30 AM »
« Edited: March 18, 2019, 11:27:34 AM by Snowguy716 »

Harry’s argument is based on the following;

1.  Climate change (global warming) is a dire and lurking, if immediate threat to society and the biosphere.

2.  Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydro power cannot feasibly, or perhaps not even possibly provide even the minimum amount of energy in the short and medium term to prevent societal breakdown or collapse.  So risks have to be taken.

3.  Compared to the rapid collapse of the biosphere caused by extreme warming, building nuclear power plants to provide large amounts of relatively cheap, low risk (but high danger) power as a bridge to better renewable substitutes in the future, is not actually that risky and even if several more fukushimas happened, would still be better off for the planet.

While I disagree with Harry about the extent and severity of future greenhouse warming, it is clear he has thought this through and did his homework.

If you think we can decarbonize even in the next 50 years with current renewables...be prepared to cover land areas the size of New England completely with windmills and solar panels.  That’s the USA alone.  Where will Europe find the wind or sun to power their industry, transport, and electricity needs?

Imagine a zone the size of New England relegated to being a complete biological dead zone on the ground and in the air because of windmills and solar panels blocking the sun from thr ground.  At least irradiated animals can still live.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 10 queries.