I wind power really the answer? As much as I am pro "green energy", I have real hesitations about wind power. At what point is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic beauty of our environment, the sounds of nature, the lives of birds, to support 8+ billion humans on the planet?
I just can't see doing this to our environment as being a reasonable solution:
I'm with you Brian, it seems like every time we try to fix things we create more problems. Thrashing ecosystems to put up wind farms is probably not the best idea. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. With reduce of course being first. It is insane that this country was covered with old growth forests and we cut almost all of them down and don't really let the old areas regenerate, just replant straight rows of monocrops instead of mixed forests. We are stupid. I have a feeling nature will cull the human herd to a more manageable level at some point. We can't solve every problem with granular scientific thinking. uh oh I am about to start a rant. Better stop now!
Well said!
"They cut the forest down to build a piece of crap
(PIECE OF CRAP)"
-Neil Young and Crazy Horse
Wow, almost has a feel of maga nation taking over AMT despite that great song reference!
Would a solar farm look any better?
Without wind and solar, whats left other than fossil fuel?
Fortunately, some good news-
“ Critics of wind and solar routinely raise concerns about how much land would be required to decarbonize the US power sector. Fortunately, the answer is relatively little. A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study shows that it would take less than 1 percent of the land in the Lower 48—that’s an area comparable to or even smaller than the fossil fuel industry’s current footprint. And when wind and solar projects are responsibly sited, the environmental and public health impacts would be far less harmful than those from extracting, producing and burning fossil fuels.”
Hardly, my friend, hardly! You have to know by now that I am hard-core pro environment. But my commitment to the environment stems from a biocentric viewpoint, and wind farms and the equally hideous solar farms stem from an anthropocentric viewpoint. Those arrays serve merely to meet the never-ending voracious and ravenous appetite of humans for the amount of power necessary to continue to live in ways that, in the long run, are unsustainable. A major premise of that desire for power is the on-going false assumption that we can continue to live as a car culture and live based with the predominance of suburbia as a doable lifestyle based on an economy of consumption rather that conservation. That is simply not going to work over time, and as the rest of the developing world strives to follow suit, the closer we edge ourselves towards an inevitable collapse.
Perhaps read James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. I'm not a fan of Kunstler's politics, but when in comes to energy and how our quest for never-ending consumption affect the planet, he has it pegged and explains it all in cleat language. Richard Heinberg, senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute has written extensively about all this as well.
I have a great deal of frustration over this issue because after studying this stuff for the last 3 or 4 decades, I'm more convinced than ever that we are heading down a blind ally toward imminent collapse. I sincerely believe our desire to continue living an unbalanced consumer oriented lifestyle is wishful thinking and believing that solar and wind farms are going to allow us to continue living that way is a fools fantasy.
I would love to be proved wrong, but highly skeptical that I will be.
EDIT: And I am in complete agreement with what static111 wrote above. Well said!
Did any of the authors discuss a carbon tax for every product from cradle to grave? While totally politically unfeasible, it seems to me to be the only way to drive consumer behaviour.
Regardless, I don’t see the climate changing for the better and think we’ve already passed the tipping point. Server farms to hold everyone’s social media content and crypto mining is guaranteeing that.
I wind power really the answer? As much as I am pro "green energy", I have real hesitations about wind power. At what point is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic beauty of our environment, the sounds of nature, the lives of birds, to support 8+ billion humans on the planet?
I just can't see doing this to our environment as being a reasonable solution:
I'm with you Brian, it seems like every time we try to fix things we create more problems. Thrashing ecosystems to put up wind farms is probably not the best idea. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. With reduce of course being first. It is insane that this country was covered with old growth forests and we cut almost all of them down and don't really let the old areas regenerate, just replant straight rows of monocrops instead of mixed forests. We are stupid. I have a feeling nature will cull the human herd to a more manageable level at some point. We can't solve every problem with granular scientific thinking. uh oh I am about to start a rant. Better stop now!
Well said!
"They cut the forest down to build a piece of crap
(PIECE OF CRAP)"
-Neil Young and Crazy Horse
Wow, almost has a feel of maga nation taking over AMT despite that great song reference!
Would a solar farm look any better?
Without wind and solar, whats left other than fossil fuel?
Fortunately, some good news-
“ Critics of wind and solar routinely raise concerns about how much land would be required to decarbonize the US power sector. Fortunately, the answer is relatively little. A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study shows that it would take less than 1 percent of the land in the Lower 48—that’s an area comparable to or even smaller than the fossil fuel industry’s current footprint. And when wind and solar projects are responsibly sited, the environmental and public health impacts would be far less harmful than those from extracting, producing and burning fossil fuels.”
Hardly, my friend, hardly! You have to know by now that I am hard-core pro environment. But my commitment to the environment stems from a biocentric viewpoint, and wind farms and the equally hideous solar farms stem from an anthropocentric viewpoint. Those arrays serve merely to meet the never-ending voracious and ravenous appetite of humans for the amount of power necessary to continue to live in ways that, in the long run, are unsustainable. A major premise of that desire for power is the on-going false assumption that we can continue to live as a car culture and live based with the predominance of suburbia as a doable lifestyle based on an economy of consumption rather that conservation. That is simply not going to work over time, and as the rest of the developing world strives to follow suit, the closer we edge ourselves towards an inevitable collapse.
Perhaps read James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. I'm not a fan of Kunstler's politics, but when in comes to energy and how our quest for never-ending consumption affect the planet, he has it pegged and explains it all in cleat language. Richard Heinberg, senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute has written extensively about all this as well.
I have a great deal of frustration over this issue because after studying this stuff for the last 3 or 4 decades, I'm more convinced than ever that we are heading down a blind ally toward imminent collapse. I sincerely believe our desire to continue living an unbalanced consumer oriented lifestyle is wishful thinking and believing that solar and wind farms are going to allow us to continue living that way is a fools fantasy.
I would love to be proved wrong, but highly skeptical that I will be.
EDIT: And I am in complete agreement with what static111 wrote above. Well said!
Did any of the authors discuss a carbon tax for every product from cradle to grave? While totally politically unfeasible, it seems to me to be the only way to drive consumer behaviour.
Regardless, I don’t see the climate changing for the better and think we’ve already passed the tipping point. Server farms to hold everyone’s social media content and crypto mining is guaranteeing that.
Carbon tax is corporate greenwashing BS
How so?
Who manages it? Where does the money go? Do they replant trees and buy previous old growth forests land and allow it to grow wild and untamed? Or does it get invested into "green energy" products that serve to enrich investors in those fields but nothing actually happens in the form of conservation or regeneration of the earth. Carbon credits and carbon tax is one of the cloudiest things out there. If it's just a "punishment" tax for people existing but the money doesn't go into cleaning up the environment and regenerating the earth, it's just more money paid against the guilt of destroying it all.
I wind power really the answer? As much as I am pro "green energy", I have real hesitations about wind power. At what point is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic beauty of our environment, the sounds of nature, the lives of birds, to support 8+ billion humans on the planet?
I just can't see doing this to our environment as being a reasonable solution:
I'm with you Brian, it seems like every time we try to fix things we create more problems. Thrashing ecosystems to put up wind farms is probably not the best idea. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. With reduce of course being first. It is insane that this country was covered with old growth forests and we cut almost all of them down and don't really let the old areas regenerate, just replant straight rows of monocrops instead of mixed forests. We are stupid. I have a feeling nature will cull the human herd to a more manageable level at some point. We can't solve every problem with granular scientific thinking. uh oh I am about to start a rant. Better stop now!
Well said!
"They cut the forest down to build a piece of crap
(PIECE OF CRAP)"
-Neil Young and Crazy Horse
Wow, almost has a feel of maga nation taking over AMT despite that great song reference!
Would a solar farm look any better?
Without wind and solar, whats left other than fossil fuel?
Fortunately, some good news-
“ Critics of wind and solar routinely raise concerns about how much land would be required to decarbonize the US power sector. Fortunately, the answer is relatively little. A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study shows that it would take less than 1 percent of the land in the Lower 48—that’s an area comparable to or even smaller than the fossil fuel industry’s current footprint. And when wind and solar projects are responsibly sited, the environmental and public health impacts would be far less harmful than those from extracting, producing and burning fossil fuels.”
Hardly, my friend, hardly! You have to know by now that I am hard-core pro environment. But my commitment to the environment stems from a biocentric viewpoint, and wind farms and the equally hideous solar farms stem from an anthropocentric viewpoint. Those arrays serve merely to meet the never-ending voracious and ravenous appetite of humans for the amount of power necessary to continue to live in ways that, in the long run, are unsustainable. A major premise of that desire for power is the on-going false assumption that we can continue to live as a car culture and live based with the predominance of suburbia as a doable lifestyle based on an economy of consumption rather that conservation. That is simply not going to work over time, and as the rest of the developing world strives to follow suit, the closer we edge ourselves towards an inevitable collapse.
Perhaps read James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. I'm not a fan of Kunstler's politics, but when in comes to energy and how our quest for never-ending consumption affect the planet, he has it pegged and explains it all in cleat language. Richard Heinberg, senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute has written extensively about all this as well.
I have a great deal of frustration over this issue because after studying this stuff for the last 3 or 4 decades, I'm more convinced than ever that we are heading down a blind ally toward imminent collapse. I sincerely believe our desire to continue living an unbalanced consumer oriented lifestyle is wishful thinking and believing that solar and wind farms are going to allow us to continue living that way is a fools fantasy.
I would love to be proved wrong, but highly skeptical that I will be.
EDIT: And I am in complete agreement with what static111 wrote above. Well said!
Wow, anthropocentric? Serves me for discussing topics with the literary class!
I will keep Kunstler in mind. As much as I agree with static and your point, we need to move the needle as quickly as possible with the assets we have. Specifically, these assets are 1) tech and 2) political might.
Implementing solar/wind is turning out to be more difficult than envisioned a few years ago.
Regarding point 1) Projects need to be reviewed carefully. Considering wildfires, we know electricity transmission is inherently complex and dangerous. The challenge with renewables are that they are much smaller in scale than the old fashioned gas fired plants, meaning more projects to generate the same amount of power = time consuming to plan and approve. And there are tons of other issues implementing the tech we have
Regarding 2) if we start telling our “freedom loving” Americans what to do, we might just get ten more years of trump, or however many years until he gracelessly leaves this planet. His next presidency would certainly hurt the climate. People will not accept being told to modify consumption, until it’s too late. They will run towards the climate denial party in droves. So imo, better we use the tools we have, but at a much quicker pace
I don't think of anthropocentric as a literary term. I don't know what else you call it.
Agreed with needing to move the needle quickly, but I see long-term as equally important.
Agree not to tell people what to do in terms of modifying their habits. But show them what the results will be and maybe they will figure it out for themselves. Education, not authoritarianism!
Oh, and of course, fuck 45!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I wind power really the answer? As much as I am pro "green energy", I have real hesitations about wind power. At what point is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic beauty of our environment, the sounds of nature, the lives of birds, to support 8+ billion humans on the planet?
I just can't see doing this to our environment as being a reasonable solution:
I'm with you Brian, it seems like every time we try to fix things we create more problems. Thrashing ecosystems to put up wind farms is probably not the best idea. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. With reduce of course being first. It is insane that this country was covered with old growth forests and we cut almost all of them down and don't really let the old areas regenerate, just replant straight rows of monocrops instead of mixed forests. We are stupid. I have a feeling nature will cull the human herd to a more manageable level at some point. We can't solve every problem with granular scientific thinking. uh oh I am about to start a rant. Better stop now!
Well said!
"They cut the forest down to build a piece of crap
(PIECE OF CRAP)"
-Neil Young and Crazy Horse
Wow, almost has a feel of maga nation taking over AMT despite that great song reference!
Would a solar farm look any better?
Without wind and solar, whats left other than fossil fuel?
Fortunately, some good news-
“ Critics of wind and solar routinely raise concerns about how much land would be required to decarbonize the US power sector. Fortunately, the answer is relatively little. A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study shows that it would take less than 1 percent of the land in the Lower 48—that’s an area comparable to or even smaller than the fossil fuel industry’s current footprint. And when wind and solar projects are responsibly sited, the environmental and public health impacts would be far less harmful than those from extracting, producing and burning fossil fuels.”
Hardly, my friend, hardly! You have to know by now that I am hard-core pro environment. But my commitment to the environment stems from a biocentric viewpoint, and wind farms and the equally hideous solar farms stem from an anthropocentric viewpoint. Those arrays serve merely to meet the never-ending voracious and ravenous appetite of humans for the amount of power necessary to continue to live in ways that, in the long run, are unsustainable. A major premise of that desire for power is the on-going false assumption that we can continue to live as a car culture and live based with the predominance of suburbia as a doable lifestyle based on an economy of consumption rather that conservation. That is simply not going to work over time, and as the rest of the developing world strives to follow suit, the closer we edge ourselves towards an inevitable collapse.
Perhaps read James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. I'm not a fan of Kunstler's politics, but when in comes to energy and how our quest for never-ending consumption affect the planet, he has it pegged and explains it all in cleat language. Richard Heinberg, senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute has written extensively about all this as well.
I have a great deal of frustration over this issue because after studying this stuff for the last 3 or 4 decades, I'm more convinced than ever that we are heading down a blind ally toward imminent collapse. I sincerely believe our desire to continue living an unbalanced consumer oriented lifestyle is wishful thinking and believing that solar and wind farms are going to allow us to continue living that way is a fools fantasy.
I would love to be proved wrong, but highly skeptical that I will be.
EDIT: And I am in complete agreement with what static111 wrote above. Well said!
Did any of the authors discuss a carbon tax for every product from cradle to grave? While totally politically unfeasible, it seems to me to be the only way to drive consumer behaviour.
Regardless, I don’t see the climate changing for the better and think we’ve already passed the tipping point. Server farms to hold everyone’s social media content and crypto mining is guaranteeing that.
Carbon tax is wishful thinking at best. It hasn't moved the needle.
Tipping point is past, yes. The question is, how far do we want to fall and for how long. We need to think long-term of forget it.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I wind power really the answer? As much as I am pro "green energy", I have real hesitations about wind power. At what point is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic beauty of our environment, the sounds of nature, the lives of birds, to support 8+ billion humans on the planet?
I just can't see doing this to our environment as being a reasonable solution:
I'm with you Brian, it seems like every time we try to fix things we create more problems. Thrashing ecosystems to put up wind farms is probably not the best idea. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. With reduce of course being first. It is insane that this country was covered with old growth forests and we cut almost all of them down and don't really let the old areas regenerate, just replant straight rows of monocrops instead of mixed forests. We are stupid. I have a feeling nature will cull the human herd to a more manageable level at some point. We can't solve every problem with granular scientific thinking. uh oh I am about to start a rant. Better stop now!
Well said!
"They cut the forest down to build a piece of crap
(PIECE OF CRAP)"
-Neil Young and Crazy Horse
Wow, almost has a feel of maga nation taking over AMT despite that great song reference!
Would a solar farm look any better?
Without wind and solar, whats left other than fossil fuel?
Fortunately, some good news-
“ Critics of wind and solar routinely raise concerns about how much land would be required to decarbonize the US power sector. Fortunately, the answer is relatively little. A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study shows that it would take less than 1 percent of the land in the Lower 48—that’s an area comparable to or even smaller than the fossil fuel industry’s current footprint. And when wind and solar projects are responsibly sited, the environmental and public health impacts would be far less harmful than those from extracting, producing and burning fossil fuels.”
Hardly, my friend, hardly! You have to know by now that I am hard-core pro environment. But my commitment to the environment stems from a biocentric viewpoint, and wind farms and the equally hideous solar farms stem from an anthropocentric viewpoint. Those arrays serve merely to meet the never-ending voracious and ravenous appetite of humans for the amount of power necessary to continue to live in ways that, in the long run, are unsustainable. A major premise of that desire for power is the on-going false assumption that we can continue to live as a car culture and live based with the predominance of suburbia as a doable lifestyle based on an economy of consumption rather that conservation. That is simply not going to work over time, and as the rest of the developing world strives to follow suit, the closer we edge ourselves towards an inevitable collapse.
Perhaps read James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. I'm not a fan of Kunstler's politics, but when in comes to energy and how our quest for never-ending consumption affect the planet, he has it pegged and explains it all in cleat language. Richard Heinberg, senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute has written extensively about all this as well.
I have a great deal of frustration over this issue because after studying this stuff for the last 3 or 4 decades, I'm more convinced than ever that we are heading down a blind ally toward imminent collapse. I sincerely believe our desire to continue living an unbalanced consumer oriented lifestyle is wishful thinking and believing that solar and wind farms are going to allow us to continue living that way is a fools fantasy.
I would love to be proved wrong, but highly skeptical that I will be.
EDIT: And I am in complete agreement with what static111 wrote above. Well said!
Did any of the authors discuss a carbon tax for every product from cradle to grave? While totally politically unfeasible, it seems to me to be the only way to drive consumer behaviour.
Regardless, I don’t see the climate changing for the better and think we’ve already passed the tipping point. Server farms to hold everyone’s social media content and crypto mining is guaranteeing that.
Carbon tax is wishful thinking at best. It hasn't moved the needle.
Tipping point is past, yes. The question is, how far do we want to fall and for how long. We need to think long-term of forget it.
Didn't a great author from New Mexico say that trial and error is a good way to build an airplane but a terrible way to build a civilization?
I wind power really the answer? As much as I am pro "green energy", I have real hesitations about wind power. At what point is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic beauty of our environment, the sounds of nature, the lives of birds, to support 8+ billion humans on the planet?
I just can't see doing this to our environment as being a reasonable solution:
I'm with you Brian, it seems like every time we try to fix things we create more problems. Thrashing ecosystems to put up wind farms is probably not the best idea. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. With reduce of course being first. It is insane that this country was covered with old growth forests and we cut almost all of them down and don't really let the old areas regenerate, just replant straight rows of monocrops instead of mixed forests. We are stupid. I have a feeling nature will cull the human herd to a more manageable level at some point. We can't solve every problem with granular scientific thinking. uh oh I am about to start a rant. Better stop now!
Well said!
"They cut the forest down to build a piece of crap
(PIECE OF CRAP)"
-Neil Young and Crazy Horse
Wow, almost has a feel of maga nation taking over AMT despite that great song reference!
Would a solar farm look any better?
Without wind and solar, whats left other than fossil fuel?
Fortunately, some good news-
“ Critics of wind and solar routinely raise concerns about how much land would be required to decarbonize the US power sector. Fortunately, the answer is relatively little. A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study shows that it would take less than 1 percent of the land in the Lower 48—that’s an area comparable to or even smaller than the fossil fuel industry’s current footprint. And when wind and solar projects are responsibly sited, the environmental and public health impacts would be far less harmful than those from extracting, producing and burning fossil fuels.”
Hardly, my friend, hardly! You have to know by now that I am hard-core pro environment. But my commitment to the environment stems from a biocentric viewpoint, and wind farms and the equally hideous solar farms stem from an anthropocentric viewpoint. Those arrays serve merely to meet the never-ending voracious and ravenous appetite of humans for the amount of power necessary to continue to live in ways that, in the long run, are unsustainable. A major premise of that desire for power is the on-going false assumption that we can continue to live as a car culture and live based with the predominance of suburbia as a doable lifestyle based on an economy of consumption rather that conservation. That is simply not going to work over time, and as the rest of the developing world strives to follow suit, the closer we edge ourselves towards an inevitable collapse.
Perhaps read James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. I'm not a fan of Kunstler's politics, but when in comes to energy and how our quest for never-ending consumption affect the planet, he has it pegged and explains it all in cleat language. Richard Heinberg, senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute has written extensively about all this as well.
I have a great deal of frustration over this issue because after studying this stuff for the last 3 or 4 decades, I'm more convinced than ever that we are heading down a blind ally toward imminent collapse. I sincerely believe our desire to continue living an unbalanced consumer oriented lifestyle is wishful thinking and believing that solar and wind farms are going to allow us to continue living that way is a fools fantasy.
I would love to be proved wrong, but highly skeptical that I will be.
EDIT: And I am in complete agreement with what static111 wrote above. Well said!
Did any of the authors discuss a carbon tax for every product from cradle to grave? While totally politically unfeasible, it seems to me to be the only way to drive consumer behaviour.
Regardless, I don’t see the climate changing for the better and think we’ve already passed the tipping point. Server farms to hold everyone’s social media content and crypto mining is guaranteeing that.
Carbon tax is wishful thinking at best. It hasn't moved the needle.
Tipping point is past, yes. The question is, how far do we want to fall and for how long. We need to think long-term of forget it.
Didn't a great author from New Mexico say that trial and error is a good way to build an airplane but a terrible way to build a civilization?
Yes, but I think you mean Colorado Springs, right? Yeah, that's it. Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.
(I doubt anyone here is old enough to get the joke. )
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I wind power really the answer? As much as I am pro "green energy", I have real hesitations about wind power. At what point is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic beauty of our environment, the sounds of nature, the lives of birds, to support 8+ billion humans on the planet?
I just can't see doing this to our environment as being a reasonable solution:
I'm with you Brian, it seems like every time we try to fix things we create more problems. Thrashing ecosystems to put up wind farms is probably not the best idea. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. With reduce of course being first. It is insane that this country was covered with old growth forests and we cut almost all of them down and don't really let the old areas regenerate, just replant straight rows of monocrops instead of mixed forests. We are stupid. I have a feeling nature will cull the human herd to a more manageable level at some point. We can't solve every problem with granular scientific thinking. uh oh I am about to start a rant. Better stop now!
Well said!
"They cut the forest down to build a piece of crap
(PIECE OF CRAP)"
-Neil Young and Crazy Horse
Wow, almost has a feel of maga nation taking over AMT despite that great song reference!
Would a solar farm look any better?
Without wind and solar, whats left other than fossil fuel?
Fortunately, some good news-
“ Critics of wind and solar routinely raise concerns about how much land would be required to decarbonize the US power sector. Fortunately, the answer is relatively little. A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study shows that it would take less than 1 percent of the land in the Lower 48—that’s an area comparable to or even smaller than the fossil fuel industry’s current footprint. And when wind and solar projects are responsibly sited, the environmental and public health impacts would be far less harmful than those from extracting, producing and burning fossil fuels.”
Hardly, my friend, hardly! You have to know by now that I am hard-core pro environment. But my commitment to the environment stems from a biocentric viewpoint, and wind farms and the equally hideous solar farms stem from an anthropocentric viewpoint. Those arrays serve merely to meet the never-ending voracious and ravenous appetite of humans for the amount of power necessary to continue to live in ways that, in the long run, are unsustainable. A major premise of that desire for power is the on-going false assumption that we can continue to live as a car culture and live based with the predominance of suburbia as a doable lifestyle based on an economy of consumption rather that conservation. That is simply not going to work over time, and as the rest of the developing world strives to follow suit, the closer we edge ourselves towards an inevitable collapse.
Perhaps read James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. I'm not a fan of Kunstler's politics, but when in comes to energy and how our quest for never-ending consumption affect the planet, he has it pegged and explains it all in cleat language. Richard Heinberg, senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute has written extensively about all this as well.
I have a great deal of frustration over this issue because after studying this stuff for the last 3 or 4 decades, I'm more convinced than ever that we are heading down a blind ally toward imminent collapse. I sincerely believe our desire to continue living an unbalanced consumer oriented lifestyle is wishful thinking and believing that solar and wind farms are going to allow us to continue living that way is a fools fantasy.
I would love to be proved wrong, but highly skeptical that I will be.
EDIT: And I am in complete agreement with what static111 wrote above. Well said!
Did any of the authors discuss a carbon tax for every product from cradle to grave? While totally politically unfeasible, it seems to me to be the only way to drive consumer behaviour.
Regardless, I don’t see the climate changing for the better and think we’ve already passed the tipping point. Server farms to hold everyone’s social media content and crypto mining is guaranteeing that.
Carbon tax is wishful thinking at best. It hasn't moved the needle.
Tipping point is past, yes. The question is, how far do we want to fall and for how long. We need to think long-term of forget it.
Didn't a great author from New Mexico say that trial and error is a good way to build an airplane but a terrible way to build a civilization?
Yes, but I think you mean Colorado Springs, right? Yeah, that's it. Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.
(I doubt anyone here is old enough to get the joke. )
I thought he was from and living in Madrid New Mexico when he wrote it. That's what some locals at the Mineshaft Tavern told me and apparently he and his wife also had some type of shop there. I guess they moved right before his big success. But yes that is to whom I was referring
I wind power really the answer? As much as I am pro "green energy", I have real hesitations about wind power. At what point is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic beauty of our environment, the sounds of nature, the lives of birds, to support 8+ billion humans on the planet?
I just can't see doing this to our environment as being a reasonable solution:
I'm with you Brian, it seems like every time we try to fix things we create more problems. Thrashing ecosystems to put up wind farms is probably not the best idea. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. With reduce of course being first. It is insane that this country was covered with old growth forests and we cut almost all of them down and don't really let the old areas regenerate, just replant straight rows of monocrops instead of mixed forests. We are stupid. I have a feeling nature will cull the human herd to a more manageable level at some point. We can't solve every problem with granular scientific thinking. uh oh I am about to start a rant. Better stop now!
Well said!
"They cut the forest down to build a piece of crap
(PIECE OF CRAP)"
-Neil Young and Crazy Horse
Wow, almost has a feel of maga nation taking over AMT despite that great song reference!
Would a solar farm look any better?
Without wind and solar, whats left other than fossil fuel?
Fortunately, some good news-
“ Critics of wind and solar routinely raise concerns about how much land would be required to decarbonize the US power sector. Fortunately, the answer is relatively little. A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study shows that it would take less than 1 percent of the land in the Lower 48—that’s an area comparable to or even smaller than the fossil fuel industry’s current footprint. And when wind and solar projects are responsibly sited, the environmental and public health impacts would be far less harmful than those from extracting, producing and burning fossil fuels.”
Hardly, my friend, hardly! You have to know by now that I am hard-core pro environment. But my commitment to the environment stems from a biocentric viewpoint, and wind farms and the equally hideous solar farms stem from an anthropocentric viewpoint. Those arrays serve merely to meet the never-ending voracious and ravenous appetite of humans for the amount of power necessary to continue to live in ways that, in the long run, are unsustainable. A major premise of that desire for power is the on-going false assumption that we can continue to live as a car culture and live based with the predominance of suburbia as a doable lifestyle based on an economy of consumption rather that conservation. That is simply not going to work over time, and as the rest of the developing world strives to follow suit, the closer we edge ourselves towards an inevitable collapse.
Perhaps read James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. I'm not a fan of Kunstler's politics, but when in comes to energy and how our quest for never-ending consumption affect the planet, he has it pegged and explains it all in cleat language. Richard Heinberg, senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute has written extensively about all this as well.
I have a great deal of frustration over this issue because after studying this stuff for the last 3 or 4 decades, I'm more convinced than ever that we are heading down a blind ally toward imminent collapse. I sincerely believe our desire to continue living an unbalanced consumer oriented lifestyle is wishful thinking and believing that solar and wind farms are going to allow us to continue living that way is a fools fantasy.
I would love to be proved wrong, but highly skeptical that I will be.
EDIT: And I am in complete agreement with what static111 wrote above. Well said!
Did any of the authors discuss a carbon tax for every product from cradle to grave? While totally politically unfeasible, it seems to me to be the only way to drive consumer behaviour.
Regardless, I don’t see the climate changing for the better and think we’ve already passed the tipping point. Server farms to hold everyone’s social media content and crypto mining is guaranteeing that.
Carbon tax is wishful thinking at best. It hasn't moved the needle.
Tipping point is past, yes. The question is, how far do we want to fall and for how long. We need to think long-term of forget it.
Didn't a great author from New Mexico say that trial and error is a good way to build an airplane but a terrible way to build a civilization?
Yes, but I think you mean Colorado Springs, right? Yeah, that's it. Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.
(I doubt anyone here is old enough to get the joke. )
I thought he was from and living in Madrid New Mexico when he wrote it. That's what some locals at the Mineshaft Tavern told me and apparently he and his wife also had some type of shop there. I guess they moved right before his big success. But yes that is to whom I was referring
Yes, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn for those confused by what were talking about. Definitely worth reading!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I wind power really the answer? As much as I am pro "green energy", I have real hesitations about wind power. At what point is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic beauty of our environment, the sounds of nature, the lives of birds, to support 8+ billion humans on the planet?
I just can't see doing this to our environment as being a reasonable solution:
I'm with you Brian, it seems like every time we try to fix things we create more problems. Thrashing ecosystems to put up wind farms is probably not the best idea. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. With reduce of course being first. It is insane that this country was covered with old growth forests and we cut almost all of them down and don't really let the old areas regenerate, just replant straight rows of monocrops instead of mixed forests. We are stupid. I have a feeling nature will cull the human herd to a more manageable level at some point. We can't solve every problem with granular scientific thinking. uh oh I am about to start a rant. Better stop now!
Well said!
"They cut the forest down to build a piece of crap
(PIECE OF CRAP)"
-Neil Young and Crazy Horse
Wow, almost has a feel of maga nation taking over AMT despite that great song reference!
Would a solar farm look any better?
Without wind and solar, whats left other than fossil fuel?
Fortunately, some good news-
“ Critics of wind and solar routinely raise concerns about how much land would be required to decarbonize the US power sector. Fortunately, the answer is relatively little. A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study shows that it would take less than 1 percent of the land in the Lower 48—that’s an area comparable to or even smaller than the fossil fuel industry’s current footprint. And when wind and solar projects are responsibly sited, the environmental and public health impacts would be far less harmful than those from extracting, producing and burning fossil fuels.”
Hardly, my friend, hardly! You have to know by now that I am hard-core pro environment. But my commitment to the environment stems from a biocentric viewpoint, and wind farms and the equally hideous solar farms stem from an anthropocentric viewpoint. Those arrays serve merely to meet the never-ending voracious and ravenous appetite of humans for the amount of power necessary to continue to live in ways that, in the long run, are unsustainable. A major premise of that desire for power is the on-going false assumption that we can continue to live as a car culture and live based with the predominance of suburbia as a doable lifestyle based on an economy of consumption rather that conservation. That is simply not going to work over time, and as the rest of the developing world strives to follow suit, the closer we edge ourselves towards an inevitable collapse.
Perhaps read James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. I'm not a fan of Kunstler's politics, but when in comes to energy and how our quest for never-ending consumption affect the planet, he has it pegged and explains it all in cleat language. Richard Heinberg, senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute has written extensively about all this as well.
I have a great deal of frustration over this issue because after studying this stuff for the last 3 or 4 decades, I'm more convinced than ever that we are heading down a blind ally toward imminent collapse. I sincerely believe our desire to continue living an unbalanced consumer oriented lifestyle is wishful thinking and believing that solar and wind farms are going to allow us to continue living that way is a fools fantasy.
I would love to be proved wrong, but highly skeptical that I will be.
EDIT: And I am in complete agreement with what static111 wrote above. Well said!
Did any of the authors discuss a carbon tax for every product from cradle to grave? While totally politically unfeasible, it seems to me to be the only way to drive consumer behaviour.
Regardless, I don’t see the climate changing for the better and think we’ve already passed the tipping point. Server farms to hold everyone’s social media content and crypto mining is guaranteeing that.
Carbon tax is wishful thinking at best. It hasn't moved the needle.
Tipping point is past, yes. The question is, how far do we want to fall and for how long. We need to think long-term of forget it.
Didn't a great author from New Mexico say that trial and error is a good way to build an airplane but a terrible way to build a civilization?
Trial and error is a good way to build an airplane? Oops, built it wrong, sorry you crashed!
I look at a carbon tax to encourage buying/supplying local and using the proceeds to reinvest in green technology and the environment and changing consumer behavior. Of course, the collected funds have to be managed properly and not used to give tax breaks. Thats what elected representatives held accountable are supposed to do. I went to the supermarket yesterday and purchased tangerines produced in South Africa. I don't know whether they were flown or shipped but if I had to have had to pay substantially more due to their carbon footprint costs, maybe I would have been fine with just local apples.
Interesting A-Z climate change factoids and whats going on out there but it'll ultimately come down to "consuming" and reducing it and consuming products with less carbon baked in. Not easy, I get it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I look at a carbon tax to encourage buying/supplying local and using the proceeds to reinvest in green technology and the environment and changing consumer behavior. Of course, the collected funds have to be managed properly and not used to give tax breaks. Thats what elected representatives held accountable are supposed to do. I went to the supermarket yesterday and purchased tangerines produced in South Africa. I don't know whether they were flown or shipped but if I had to have had to pay substantially more due to their carbon footprint costs, maybe I would have been fine with just local apples.
Interesting A-Z climate change factoids and whats going on out there but it'll ultimately come down to "consuming" and reducing it and consuming products with less carbon baked in. Not easy, I get it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I appreciate your optimistic outlook my friend. Yes, it makes sense to try!
Can we agree that shipping tangerines all the way from South Africa to North America or blueberries from Chile to northern California (or Oregon or Washington, etc.) just doesn't make sense in the first place? Clear back as far as the mid to late 70's, people used to talk about how absurd it was that California oranges were shipped to Florida and Florida oranges were shipped to California. I don't think those were rumors. And little has changed.
I know other than juicing them, citrus fruits do not preserves well, but most fruits can be dried, canned or frozen. Stocking up used to be a popular concept. In fact, the Carol Hupping/ Rodale publishing book Stocking Up was a hugely popular volume that went through a number of editions (three, I believe), a number of revisions, and a ton of printings. A lot of people were into it. I think the whole back-to-the-land, Mother Earth News, hippie commune activities in the 70s were a good move in the right direction, but by making it too much of an of-it's-time hippy culture thing, it kind of died out. If we could get people to see this kind of activity as common sense for all times, there wouldn't be nearly the need for so much movement of fresh produce around the planet.
I would love to see a whole new revival of local production and local sustainable economy happen. The sooner the better because it's going to happen anyway, only if not voluntarily, it will happen because of collapsed infrastructure and done as a result of a force of necessity and duress. That would not be easy nor fun. We need to wake up or pay a heavy toll.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Yah, my grandparents used to do that. They can pears, peaches, etc.. in the summer when they were able to be grown locally, then ate them in the winter. They must of grown up in a time where importing fruit from warmer climates during the winter wasn't a thing. It was a big event in their house. Canning all that stuff every year.
Yah, my grandparents used to do that. They can pears, peaches, etc.. in the summer when they were able to be grown locally, then ate them in the winter. They must of grown up in a time where importing fruit from warmer climates during the winter wasn't a thing. It was a big event in their house. Canning all that stuff every year.
Nice, Zod! It is a bit of work, but done with a partner or friend, it can be a lot of fun and good bonding experience. We're trying to organize some time with a friend to put up some peaches since they have been so good here this year.
A lot of years ago, we had a huge apricot tree that produced tremendous amounts of delicious apricots- I mean bags and bags and bags full!- and my mom made some drying racks and halved and laid out lots of the fruit for drying. I spent some time with my brother when he was living up in Windsor, California cutting and drying fruit for their farmer's market. (Sadly, most of Windsor back then was prime growing land but developers saw to it that the land "grew" massive suburban sprawl McMansion housing.)
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I wind power really the answer? As much as I am pro "green energy", I have real hesitations about wind power. At what point is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic beauty of our environment, the sounds of nature, the lives of birds, to support 8+ billion humans on the planet?
I just can't see doing this to our environment as being a reasonable solution:
I wind power really the answer? As much as I am pro "green energy", I have real hesitations about wind power. At what point is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic beauty of our environment, the sounds of nature, the lives of birds, to support 8+ billion humans on the planet?
I just can't see doing this to our environment as being a reasonable solution:
you and trump agree. haha
Not "haha", my friend, hahaaaaaardly!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Some things to consider linked bellow. Also note that Donald Trump is not a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and I would bet you anything there are damn few MAGA UCS members either. Those people for the most part do not believe in or follow science (including ecological sciences). I've read and studied more about ecology and environment than a stadium full of MAGA anti science types.
I'm not suggesting anyone here should be absolutely opposed to wind power (there are places where turbines are appropriate), but I would encourage anyone to not knee jerk blindly jump on the wind and solar panel bandwagons without reading beyond the headlines and doing at least some basic research.
So here on Long Island the tri-state area opened up water/ocean to power companies. They bid on a bunch of off shore land. Out here on the South shore here where I live, they are going to build a windfarm. A bunch of people are not happy about it. I've noticed a lot more commercials for "green energy" lately. I'm sure it's because of the backlash.
I don't think any surmountable pushback is going to stop them from building it. I also don't have enough research to see if any claims against the farm are plausible.
From what I’ve seen, the biggest oppo is city of Long Beach wanting authority over the land where the cables connect to the ocean. Some are also expressing concern over radiation from the cables. Definitely difficult to find details on this.
And this is where I live. Long Beach.
The opposition claims that the whales that are being struck by boats are the reason for them dying. We've had 3 necropsy's performed this summer alone.
As far a s the cables are concerned, we have cables coming into the city already from Island park to us in the channel so I never understood that one. I know it'll be in the ocean now but if you're that worried about it move down the beach further.
I look at a carbon tax to encourage buying/supplying local and using the proceeds to reinvest in green technology and the environment and changing consumer behavior. Of course, the collected funds have to be managed properly and not used to give tax breaks. Thats what elected representatives held accountable are supposed to do. I went to the supermarket yesterday and purchased tangerines produced in South Africa. I don't know whether they were flown or shipped but if I had to have had to pay substantially more due to their carbon footprint costs, maybe I would have been fine with just local apples.
Interesting A-Z climate change factoids and whats going on out there but it'll ultimately come down to "consuming" and reducing it and consuming products with less carbon baked in. Not easy, I get it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I appreciate your optimistic outlook my friend. Yes, it makes sense to try!
Can we agree that shipping tangerines all the way from South Africa to North America or blueberries from Chile to northern California (or Oregon or Washington, etc.) just doesn't make sense in the first place? Clear back as far as the mid to late 70's, people used to talk about how absurd it was that California oranges were shipped to Florida and Florida oranges were shipped to California. I don't think those were rumors. And little has changed.
I know other than juicing them, citrus fruits do not preserves well, but most fruits can be dried, canned or frozen. Stocking up used to be a popular concept. In fact, the Carol Hupping/ Rodale publishing book Stocking Up was a hugely popular volume that went through a number of editions (three, I believe), a number of revisions, and a ton of printings. A lot of people were into it. I think the whole back-to-the-land, Mother Earth News, hippie commune activities in the 70s were a good move in the right direction, but by making it too much of an of-it's-time hippy culture thing, it kind of died out. If we could get people to see this kind of activity as common sense for all times, there wouldn't be nearly the need for so much movement of fresh produce around the planet.
I would love to see a whole new revival of local production and local sustainable economy happen. The sooner the better because it's going to happen anyway, only if not voluntarily, it will happen because of collapsed infrastructure and done as a result of a force of necessity and duress. That would not be easy nor fun. We need to wake up or pay a heavy toll.
Shipping on the rails is very easy and less of a carbon footprint than trucking cross country. Imagine that one of the oldest means of transport is still greener than the newer ones.
I do like tomatoes in the winter and a pomegranate in the summer. Shipped correctly we can lower emissions considerably.
Some things to consider linked bellow. Also note that Donald Trump is not a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and I would bet you anything there are damn few MAGA UCS members either. Those people for the most part do not believe in or follow science (including ecological sciences). I've read and studied more about ecology and environment than a stadium full of MAGA anti science types.
I'm not suggesting anyone here should be absolutely opposed to wind power (there are places where turbines are appropriate), but I would encourage anyone to not knee jerk blindly jump on the wind and solar panel bandwagons without reading beyond the headlines and doing at least some basic research.
California and the west coast are getting more extreme rain than previous times.
There should be more damns and reservoirs in place to collect the rain that falls. If new damns are in place that let migratory fish/animals pass then it would be a win win.
Maybe reintroduce pacific salmon to some areas too?
Some things to consider linked bellow. Also note that Donald Trump is not a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and I would bet you anything there are damn few MAGA UCS members either. Those people for the most part do not believe in or follow science (including ecological sciences). I've read and studied more about ecology and environment than a stadium full of MAGA anti science types.
I'm not suggesting anyone here should be absolutely opposed to wind power (there are places where turbines are appropriate), but I would encourage anyone to not knee jerk blindly jump on the wind and solar panel bandwagons without reading beyond the headlines and doing at least some basic research.
I look at a carbon tax to encourage buying/supplying local and using the proceeds to reinvest in green technology and the environment and changing consumer behavior. Of course, the collected funds have to be managed properly and not used to give tax breaks. Thats what elected representatives held accountable are supposed to do. I went to the supermarket yesterday and purchased tangerines produced in South Africa. I don't know whether they were flown or shipped but if I had to have had to pay substantially more due to their carbon footprint costs, maybe I would have been fine with just local apples.
Interesting A-Z climate change factoids and whats going on out there but it'll ultimately come down to "consuming" and reducing it and consuming products with less carbon baked in. Not easy, I get it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I appreciate your optimistic outlook my friend. Yes, it makes sense to try!
Can we agree that shipping tangerines all the way from South Africa to North America or blueberries from Chile to northern California (or Oregon or Washington, etc.) just doesn't make sense in the first place? Clear back as far as the mid to late 70's, people used to talk about how absurd it was that California oranges were shipped to Florida and Florida oranges were shipped to California. I don't think those were rumors. And little has changed.
I know other than juicing them, citrus fruits do not preserves well, but most fruits can be dried, canned or frozen. Stocking up used to be a popular concept. In fact, the Carol Hupping/ Rodale publishing book Stocking Up was a hugely popular volume that went through a number of editions (three, I believe), a number of revisions, and a ton of printings. A lot of people were into it. I think the whole back-to-the-land, Mother Earth News, hippie commune activities in the 70s were a good move in the right direction, but by making it too much of an of-it's-time hippy culture thing, it kind of died out. If we could get people to see this kind of activity as common sense for all times, there wouldn't be nearly the need for so much movement of fresh produce around the planet.
I would love to see a whole new revival of local production and local sustainable economy happen. The sooner the better because it's going to happen anyway, only if not voluntarily, it will happen because of collapsed infrastructure and done as a result of a force of necessity and duress. That would not be easy nor fun. We need to wake up or pay a heavy toll.
Shipping on the rails is very easy and less of a carbon footprint than trucking cross country. Imagine that one of the oldest means of transport is still greener than the newer ones.
I do like tomatoes in the winter and a pomegranate in the summer. Shipped correctly we can lower emissions considerably.
Well said about railroad shipping having the lowest carbon footprint. The US not keeping its rail systems strong and, in fact, dismantling much of it, and no presidential administration making it a priority-- all of that is one of my biggest frustrations with this country. Having a good, sound rain system should be a top priority in this country and its not. Until it becomes so, I can't take any administrations claim to be "green" seriously.
We are just not an environmentally proactive country. We consume more resources per-capita than the rest of the world. So much of this planets environmental woes stem from right here in the good old USofA and, to a lesser degree, other developed countries. We are the planets biggest foe.
Some things to consider linked bellow. Also note that Donald Trump is not a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and I would bet you anything there are damn few MAGA UCS members either. Those people for the most part do not believe in or follow science (including ecological sciences). I've read and studied more about ecology and environment than a stadium full of MAGA anti science types.
I'm not suggesting anyone here should be absolutely opposed to wind power (there are places where turbines are appropriate), but I would encourage anyone to not knee jerk blindly jump on the wind and solar panel bandwagons without reading beyond the headlines and doing at least some basic research.
Cmon my man, the three big points in this article are land use, wildlife and health. You’d say the following is better? Or even comparable?
I never said that, L. I've made my points clear several times in this thread. Sorry bud, but I get tired of writing the same things over and over. But OK, one more time as briefly as I can make it:
-Slow population growth. The biggest thing a person can do for the environment is to not reproduce. Want kids? Adopt. -Drive less often, fewer miles. Live closer to work. No more pleasure boat, jets skis, etc. -Stop flying. -Take public transit. -Take the train and advocate for railroads. -Know the difference between want and need and consume less. -When we do consume, go with durable, not cheap crap. -Adjust the thermostat to reduce power usage. -Solar panels on building are fine, no argument there. Cover the land with them is not. -Some wind turbines if industrial areas might be feasible, but not covering the land.
-And put an end to the car culture. You show oil wells, people talk about wind power, solar power, and electric cars. Let's be honest- the focus of all that is to maintain the luxury of every person driving an automobile. There is NO WAY that can be sustainable. No way. -There are plenty of other ways to reduce consumption and energy
uses. Anyone here could come up with several to add to my list.
Zero population growth (and its eventual decline), reducing consumption, the end of suburbia, and the end of the car culture are the answers. Your wind turbines and solar panel farms are a vain and futile effort to maintain the unsustainable.
But to be honest, I don't think most of what I say matters anyway. I've been an environmental activist for decades (40 years maybe? I've lost track.) I started to become aware of environmental issues even further back than that. I would say my first real wake up call goes back to 1973 when I saw Soylant Green in a drive-in theater when it came out that year. That movies addressed the issues of dying oceans, pollution, over-population and the greenhouse effect. 1973-- fifty years ago!!!
And despite all of the efforts made by the environmentally active minority, the general trajectory of the overall health of the planet has been a decline. So lately it has crossed my mind that I'm tired of the fight. Some days I really feel like... augh, edited, too negative BUT...
Sorry, but it all gets to be too much sometimes.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Some things to consider linked bellow. Also note that Donald Trump is not a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and I would bet you anything there are damn few MAGA UCS members either. Those people for the most part do not believe in or follow science (including ecological sciences). I've read and studied more about ecology and environment than a stadium full of MAGA anti science types.
I'm not suggesting anyone here should be absolutely opposed to wind power (there are places where turbines are appropriate), but I would encourage anyone to not knee jerk blindly jump on the wind and solar panel bandwagons without reading beyond the headlines and doing at least some basic research.
Cmon my man, the three big points in this article are land use, wildlife and health. You’d say the following is better? Or even comparable?
I never said that, L. I've made my points clear several times in this thread. Sorry bud, but I get tired of writing the same things over and over. But OK, one more time as briefly as I can make it:
-Slow population growth. The biggest thing a person can do for the environment is to not reproduce. Want kids? Adopt. -Drive less often, fewer miles. Live closer to work. No more pleasure boat, jets skis, etc. -Stop flying. -Take public transit. -Take the train and advocate for railroads. -Know the difference between want and need and consume less. -When we do consume, go with durable, not cheap crap. -Adjust the thermostat to reduce power usage. -Solar panels on building are fine, no argument there. Cover the land with them is not. -Some wind turbines if industrial areas might be feasible, but not covering the land.
-And put an end to the car culture. You show oil wells, people talk about wind power, solar power, and electric cars. Let's be honest- the focus of all that is to maintain the luxury of every person driving an automobile. There is NO WAY that can be sustainable. No way. -There are plenty of other ways to reduce consumption and energy
uses. Anyone here could come up with several to add to my list.
Zero population growth (and its eventual decline), reducing consumption, the end of suburbia, and the end of the car culture are the answers. Your wind turbines and solar panel farms are a vain and futile effort to maintain the unsustainable.
But to be honest, I don't think most of what I say matters anyway. I've been an environmental activist for decades (40 years maybe? I've lost track.) I started to become aware of environmental issues even further back than that. I would say my first real wake up call goes back to 1973 when I saw Soylant Green in a drive-in theater when it came out that year. That movies addressed the issues of dying oceans, pollution, over-population and the greenhouse effect. 1973-- fifty years ago!!!
And despite all of the efforts made by the environmentally active minority, the general trajectory of the overall health of the planet has been a decline. So lately it has crossed my mind that I'm tired of the fight. Some days I really feel like... augh, edited, too negative BUT...
Sorry, but it all gets to be too much sometimes.
Well..I think my confusion is when I see comments attacking windmills, I have a practical interpretation, meaning if we don’t generate energy from windmills, the oil industry powers will be putting a rig there instead, or somewhere else, to generate the necessary energy. Yes it’s logical to use less energy, but that might be political suicide.
your suggestions here are excellent, but are they possible? Have less kids? Have you seen our GOP topic recently and all the chit chat about Lauren Boebert? She already has four kids and did you see her operate on that first date? She probably has number five on the way! Seriously, if the protect climate folks start telling people how many kids to have, that could be disastrous politically. To protect the climate we need reps in power who want to do the same.
Trains make a lot of sense. Here in NY, we have the most extensive rail network on the continent. Problem is, it’s good to go to one place, Manhattan.
Consume less? That’s gonna get trump elected quicker than if we tell Boebert how many kids to have. Stop flying? How the heck is PJ gonna fill their arenas with 10C fans?
I think where we get caught up im thinking what is practical. We have the ability to generate clean energy with existing technology. That means a lot of windmills and solar panels . It’s going to require a lot of modernization to the infrastructure to distribute , but the tech exists, and it’s fairly popular with the electorate.
Unfortunately, without support from the population, great ideas could lead to disaster on any given Election Day.
Some things to consider linked bellow. Also note that Donald Trump is not a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and I would bet you anything there are damn few MAGA UCS members either. Those people for the most part do not believe in or follow science (including ecological sciences). I've read and studied more about ecology and environment than a stadium full of MAGA anti science types.
I'm not suggesting anyone here should be absolutely opposed to wind power (there are places where turbines are appropriate), but I would encourage anyone to not knee jerk blindly jump on the wind and solar panel bandwagons without reading beyond the headlines and doing at least some basic research.
Cmon my man, the three big points in this article are land use, wildlife and health. You’d say the following is better? Or even comparable?
I never said that, L. I've made my points clear several times in this thread. Sorry bud, but I get tired of writing the same things over and over. But OK, one more time as briefly as I can make it:
-Slow population growth. The biggest thing a person can do for the environment is to not reproduce. Want kids? Adopt. -Drive less often, fewer miles. Live closer to work. No more pleasure boat, jets skis, etc. -Stop flying. -Take public transit. -Take the train and advocate for railroads. -Know the difference between want and need and consume less. -When we do consume, go with durable, not cheap crap. -Adjust the thermostat to reduce power usage. -Solar panels on building are fine, no argument there. Cover the land with them is not. -Some wind turbines if industrial areas might be feasible, but not covering the land.
-And put an end to the car culture. You show oil wells, people talk about wind power, solar power, and electric cars. Let's be honest- the focus of all that is to maintain the luxury of every person driving an automobile. There is NO WAY that can be sustainable. No way. -There are plenty of other ways to reduce consumption and energy
uses. Anyone here could come up with several to add to my list.
Zero population growth (and its eventual decline), reducing consumption, the end of suburbia, and the end of the car culture are the answers. Your wind turbines and solar panel farms are a vain and futile effort to maintain the unsustainable.
But to be honest, I don't think most of what I say matters anyway. I've been an environmental activist for decades (40 years maybe? I've lost track.) I started to become aware of environmental issues even further back than that. I would say my first real wake up call goes back to 1973 when I saw Soylant Green in a drive-in theater when it came out that year. That movies addressed the issues of dying oceans, pollution, over-population and the greenhouse effect. 1973-- fifty years ago!!!
And despite all of the efforts made by the environmentally active minority, the general trajectory of the overall health of the planet has been a decline. So lately it has crossed my mind that I'm tired of the fight. Some days I really feel like... augh, edited, too negative BUT...
Sorry, but it all gets to be too much sometimes.
Well..I think my confusion is when I see comments attacking windmills, I have a practical interpretation, meaning if we don’t generate energy from windmills, the oil industry powers will be putting a rig there instead, or somewhere else, to generate the necessary energy. Yes it’s logical to use less energy, but that might be political suicide.
your suggestions here are excellent, but are they possible? Have less kids? Have you seen our GOP topic recently and all the chit chat about Lauren Boebert? She already has four kids and did you see her operate on that first date? She probably has number five on the way! Seriously, if the protect climate folks start telling people how many kids to have, that could be disastrous politically. To protect the climate we need reps in power who want to do the same.
Trains make a lot of sense. Here in NY, we have the most extensive rail network on the continent. Problem is, it’s good to go to one place, Manhattan.
Consume less? That’s gonna get trump elected quicker than if we tell Boebert how many kids to have. Stop flying? How the heck is PJ gonna fill their arenas with 10C fans?
I think where we get caught up im thinking what is practical. We have the ability to generate clean energy with existing technology. That means a lot of windmills and solar panels . It’s going to require a lot of modernization to the infrastructure to distribute , but the tech exists, and it’s fairly popular with the electorate.
Unfortunately, without support from the population, great ideas could lead to disaster on any given Election Day.
I respect your thoughts and comments, L, and stand firmly by mine. But I wouldn't be too concerned. Only a small number of people agree with my take on things, far fewer will ever hear or read them, and a very scant few if any will adopt them.
Vox clamantis in deserto.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Revealed: top carbon offset projects may not cut planet-heating emissions
Majority
of offset projects that have sold the most carbon credits are ‘likely
junk’, according to analysis by Corporate Accountability and the
Guardian
The
vast majority of the environmental projects most frequently used to
offset greenhouse gas emissions appear to have fundamental failings
suggesting they cannot be relied upon to cut planet-heating emissions,
according to a new analysis.
The global,
multibillion-dollar voluntary carbon trading industry has been embraced
by governments, organisations and corporations including oil and gas
companies, airlines, fast-food brands, fashion houses, tech firms, art
galleries and universities as a way of claiming to reduce their
greenhouse gas footprint.
It
works by carbon offset credits being tradable “allowances” or
certificates that allows the purchaser to compensate for 1 ton of carbon
dioxide or the equivalent in greenhouse gases by investing in
environmental projects that claim to reduce carbon emissions.
But
there is mounting evidence suggesting that many of these offset schemes
exaggerate climate benefits and underestimate potential harms.
In
a new investigation, the Guardian and researchers from Corporate
Accountability, a non-profit, transnational corporate watchdog, analysedthe top 50 emission offset projects, those that have sold the most carbon credits in the global market.
According to our criteria and classification system:
A total of 39 of the top 50 emission offset projects, or 78% of them, were categorised as likely junk or worthless due to one or more fundamental failing that undermines its promised emission cuts.
Eight others (16%) look problematic,
with evidence suggesting they may have at least one fundamental failing
and are potentially junk, according to the classification system
applied.
The efficacy of the remaining three projects (6%) could not be determined definitively
as there was insufficient public, independent information to adequately
assess the quality of the credits and/or accuracy of their claimed
climate benefits.
Overall, $1.16bn
(£937m) of carbon credits have been traded so far from the projects
classified by the investigation as likely junk or worthless; a further $400m of credits bought and sold were potentially junk.
The 50 most popular global projects include
forestry schemes, hydroelectric dams, solar and wind farms, waste
disposal and greener household appliances schemes across 20 (mostly)
developing countries, according to data from AlliedOffsets,
the most comprehensive emissions trading database which tracks projects
from inception. They account for almost a third of the entire global
voluntary carbon market (VCM), suggesting that junk or overvalued carbon
credits which exaggerate emission reduction benefits could be the norm.
In
our analysis, a project was classified as likely junk if there was
compelling evidence, claims or high risk that it cannot guarantee
additional, permanent greenhouse gas cuts among other criteria. In some
cases, there was evidence suggesting the project could leak greenhouse
gas emissions or shift emissions elsewhere. In other cases, the climate
benefits appeared to be exaggerated or the project would have happened
independently – with or without the voluntary carbon market.
MORE AT LINK
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I want to add that if anything I post here come across as contentious, or self-righteous (we're all learning and trying to figure things out), please understand that is not my motive. I apologize if I have caused any offense. I consider you good people as friends and folks I care about. If I come on too strong, I'm sorry, it's only because I care. I only want what is best for all of us.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I look at a carbon tax to encourage buying/supplying local and using the proceeds to reinvest in green technology and the environment and changing consumer behavior. Of course, the collected funds have to be managed properly and not used to give tax breaks. Thats what elected representatives held accountable are supposed to do. I went to the supermarket yesterday and purchased tangerines produced in South Africa. I don't know whether they were flown or shipped but if I had to have had to pay substantially more due to their carbon footprint costs, maybe I would have been fine with just local apples.
Interesting A-Z climate change factoids and whats going on out there but it'll ultimately come down to "consuming" and reducing it and consuming products with less carbon baked in. Not easy, I get it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I appreciate your optimistic outlook my friend. Yes, it makes sense to try!
Can we agree that shipping tangerines all the way from South Africa to North America or blueberries from Chile to northern California (or Oregon or Washington, etc.) just doesn't make sense in the first place? Clear back as far as the mid to late 70's, people used to talk about how absurd it was that California oranges were shipped to Florida and Florida oranges were shipped to California. I don't think those were rumors. And little has changed.
I know other than juicing them, citrus fruits do not preserves well, but most fruits can be dried, canned or frozen. Stocking up used to be a popular concept. In fact, the Carol Hupping/ Rodale publishing book Stocking Up was a hugely popular volume that went through a number of editions (three, I believe), a number of revisions, and a ton of printings. A lot of people were into it. I think the whole back-to-the-land, Mother Earth News, hippie commune activities in the 70s were a good move in the right direction, but by making it too much of an of-it's-time hippy culture thing, it kind of died out. If we could get people to see this kind of activity as common sense for all times, there wouldn't be nearly the need for so much movement of fresh produce around the planet.
I would love to see a whole new revival of local production and local sustainable economy happen. The sooner the better because it's going to happen anyway, only if not voluntarily, it will happen because of collapsed infrastructure and done as a result of a force of necessity and duress. That would not be easy nor fun. We need to wake up or pay a heavy toll.
Shipping on the rails is very easy and less of a carbon footprint than trucking cross country. Imagine that one of the oldest means of transport is still greener than the newer ones.
I do like tomatoes in the winter and a pomegranate in the summer. Shipped correctly we can lower emissions considerably.
Well said about railroad shipping having the lowest carbon footprint. The US not keeping its rail systems strong and, in fact, dismantling much of it, and no presidential administration making it a priority-- all of that is one of my biggest frustrations with this country. Having a good, sound rain system should be a top priority in this country and its not. Until it becomes so, I can't take any administrations claim to be "green" seriously.
We are just not an environmentally proactive country. We consume more resources per-capita than the rest of the world. So much of this planets environmental woes stem from right here in the good old USofA and, to a lesser degree, other developed countries. We are the planets biggest foe.
Some things to consider linked bellow. Also note that Donald Trump is not a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and I would bet you anything there are damn few MAGA UCS members either. Those people for the most part do not believe in or follow science (including ecological sciences). I've read and studied more about ecology and environment than a stadium full of MAGA anti science types.
I'm not suggesting anyone here should be absolutely opposed to wind power (there are places where turbines are appropriate), but I would encourage anyone to not knee jerk blindly jump on the wind and solar panel bandwagons without reading beyond the headlines and doing at least some basic research.
Cmon my man, the three big points in this article are land use, wildlife and health. You’d say the following is better? Or even comparable?
I never said that, L. I've made my points clear several times in this thread. Sorry bud, but I get tired of writing the same things over and over. But OK, one more time as briefly as I can make it:
-Slow population growth. The biggest thing a person can do for the environment is to not reproduce. Want kids? Adopt. -Drive less often, fewer miles. Live closer to work. No more pleasure boat, jets skis, etc. -Stop flying. -Take public transit. -Take the train and advocate for railroads. -Know the difference between want and need and consume less. -When we do consume, go with durable, not cheap crap. -Adjust the thermostat to reduce power usage. -Solar panels on building are fine, no argument there. Cover the land with them is not. -Some wind turbines if industrial areas might be feasible, but not covering the land.
-And put an end to the car culture. You show oil wells, people talk about wind power, solar power, and electric cars. Let's be honest- the focus of all that is to maintain the luxury of every person driving an automobile. There is NO WAY that can be sustainable. No way. -There are plenty of other ways to reduce consumption and energy
uses. Anyone here could come up with several to add to my list.
Zero population growth (and its eventual decline), reducing consumption, the end of suburbia, and the end of the car culture are the answers. Your wind turbines and solar panel farms are a vain and futile effort to maintain the unsustainable.
But to be honest, I don't think most of what I say matters anyway. I've been an environmental activist for decades (40 years maybe? I've lost track.) I started to become aware of environmental issues even further back than that. I would say my first real wake up call goes back to 1973 when I saw Soylant Green in a drive-in theater when it came out that year. That movies addressed the issues of dying oceans, pollution, over-population and the greenhouse effect. 1973-- fifty years ago!!!
And despite all of the efforts made by the environmentally active minority, the general trajectory of the overall health of the planet has been a decline. So lately it has crossed my mind that I'm tired of the fight. Some days I really feel like... augh, edited, too negative BUT...
Sorry, but it all gets to be too much sometimes.
You forgot “wear a sweater!”
While it’s not European or Japanese scale train travel, it is movement in the right direction. And the reason passenger train travel is limited in scope and scale is because the rail lines have been devoted to freight trains and they take precedence. That’s slowly changing with upgrades such as additional tracks and passing zones, particularly in high traffic areas like the Northeast Corridor. It used to be 2 tracks to serve freight, commuter rail and Amtrak. In many places now it’s four. It’s beginning to change for the better but we’ll always be 20-30 years behind Europe and 50 behind China and Japan in this regard.
Gift article on the Brandon Crime family and private enterprise getting into the rail game.
I look at a carbon tax to encourage buying/supplying local and using the proceeds to reinvest in green technology and the environment and changing consumer behavior. Of course, the collected funds have to be managed properly and not used to give tax breaks. Thats what elected representatives held accountable are supposed to do. I went to the supermarket yesterday and purchased tangerines produced in South Africa. I don't know whether they were flown or shipped but if I had to have had to pay substantially more due to their carbon footprint costs, maybe I would have been fine with just local apples.
Interesting A-Z climate change factoids and whats going on out there but it'll ultimately come down to "consuming" and reducing it and consuming products with less carbon baked in. Not easy, I get it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I appreciate your optimistic outlook my friend. Yes, it makes sense to try!
Can we agree that shipping tangerines all the way from South Africa to North America or blueberries from Chile to northern California (or Oregon or Washington, etc.) just doesn't make sense in the first place? Clear back as far as the mid to late 70's, people used to talk about how absurd it was that California oranges were shipped to Florida and Florida oranges were shipped to California. I don't think those were rumors. And little has changed.
I know other than juicing them, citrus fruits do not preserves well, but most fruits can be dried, canned or frozen. Stocking up used to be a popular concept. In fact, the Carol Hupping/ Rodale publishing book Stocking Up was a hugely popular volume that went through a number of editions (three, I believe), a number of revisions, and a ton of printings. A lot of people were into it. I think the whole back-to-the-land, Mother Earth News, hippie commune activities in the 70s were a good move in the right direction, but by making it too much of an of-it's-time hippy culture thing, it kind of died out. If we could get people to see this kind of activity as common sense for all times, there wouldn't be nearly the need for so much movement of fresh produce around the planet.
I would love to see a whole new revival of local production and local sustainable economy happen. The sooner the better because it's going to happen anyway, only if not voluntarily, it will happen because of collapsed infrastructure and done as a result of a force of necessity and duress. That would not be easy nor fun. We need to wake up or pay a heavy toll.
Shipping on the rails is very easy and less of a carbon footprint than trucking cross country. Imagine that one of the oldest means of transport is still greener than the newer ones.
I do like tomatoes in the winter and a pomegranate in the summer. Shipped correctly we can lower emissions considerably.
Well said about railroad shipping having the lowest carbon footprint. The US not keeping its rail systems strong and, in fact, dismantling much of it, and no presidential administration making it a priority-- all of that is one of my biggest frustrations with this country. Having a good, sound rain system should be a top priority in this country and its not. Until it becomes so, I can't take any administrations claim to be "green" seriously.
We are just not an environmentally proactive country. We consume more resources per-capita than the rest of the world. So much of this planets environmental woes stem from right here in the good old USofA and, to a lesser degree, other developed countries. We are the planets biggest foe.
Some things to consider linked bellow. Also note that Donald Trump is not a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and I would bet you anything there are damn few MAGA UCS members either. Those people for the most part do not believe in or follow science (including ecological sciences). I've read and studied more about ecology and environment than a stadium full of MAGA anti science types.
I'm not suggesting anyone here should be absolutely opposed to wind power (there are places where turbines are appropriate), but I would encourage anyone to not knee jerk blindly jump on the wind and solar panel bandwagons without reading beyond the headlines and doing at least some basic research.
Cmon my man, the three big points in this article are land use, wildlife and health. You’d say the following is better? Or even comparable?
I never said that, L. I've made my points clear several times in this thread. Sorry bud, but I get tired of writing the same things over and over. But OK, one more time as briefly as I can make it:
-Slow population growth. The biggest thing a person can do for the environment is to not reproduce. Want kids? Adopt. -Drive less often, fewer miles. Live closer to work. No more pleasure boat, jets skis, etc. -Stop flying. -Take public transit. -Take the train and advocate for railroads. -Know the difference between want and need and consume less. -When we do consume, go with durable, not cheap crap. -Adjust the thermostat to reduce power usage. -Solar panels on building are fine, no argument there. Cover the land with them is not. -Some wind turbines if industrial areas might be feasible, but not covering the land.
-And put an end to the car culture. You show oil wells, people talk about wind power, solar power, and electric cars. Let's be honest- the focus of all that is to maintain the luxury of every person driving an automobile. There is NO WAY that can be sustainable. No way. -There are plenty of other ways to reduce consumption and energy
uses. Anyone here could come up with several to add to my list.
Zero population growth (and its eventual decline), reducing consumption, the end of suburbia, and the end of the car culture are the answers. Your wind turbines and solar panel farms are a vain and futile effort to maintain the unsustainable.
But to be honest, I don't think most of what I say matters anyway. I've been an environmental activist for decades (40 years maybe? I've lost track.) I started to become aware of environmental issues even further back than that. I would say my first real wake up call goes back to 1973 when I saw Soylant Green in a drive-in theater when it came out that year. That movies addressed the issues of dying oceans, pollution, over-population and the greenhouse effect. 1973-- fifty years ago!!!
And despite all of the efforts made by the environmentally active minority, the general trajectory of the overall health of the planet has been a decline. So lately it has crossed my mind that I'm tired of the fight. Some days I really feel like... augh, edited, too negative BUT...
Sorry, but it all gets to be too much sometimes.
You forgot “wear a sweater!”
While it’s not European or Japanese scale train travel, it is movement in the right direction. And the reason passenger train travel is limited in scope and scale is because the rail lines have been devoted to freight trains and they take precedence. That’s slowly changing with upgrades such as additional tracks and passing zones, particularly in high traffic areas like the Northeast Corridor. It used to be 2 tracks to serve freight, commuter rail and Amtrak. In many places now it’s four. It’s beginning to change for the better but we’ll always be 20-30 years behind Europe and 50 behind China and Japan in this regard.
Gift article on the Brandon Crime family and private enterprise getting into the rail game.
I'm always happy to see progress happen with our rail systems. Putting up competition to AMTRAK as the article talks about might be for the best- we'll see.
But
you're right- we waited to long to start improving rail infrastructure
and are way too late to see much happen in the way of high speed rail. The article seems a lot more optimistic about the west coast high speed rail than I have been I've been reading about it in the quarterly RailPac periodical for several years and they do really push for it, but how many years have we been hearing about it and
how many billions of dollars have been spent and how far has it gotten?
Kind of sad to think about. Time will tell.
More upgrades along the lines of what you mentioned makes more sense. I hope we see more of that. It always made sense to me to improve existing infrastructure. Always hoping for the best for US railways.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Yes, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn for those confused by what were talking about. Definitely worth reading!
Interesting A-Z climate change factoids and whats going on out there but it'll ultimately come down to "consuming" and reducing it and consuming products with less carbon baked in. Not easy, I get it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Climate Change from A to Z | The New Yorker
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It is a bit of work, but done with a partner or friend, it can be a lot of fun and good bonding experience. We're trying to organize some time with a friend to put up some peaches since they have been so good here this year.
I spent some time with my brother when he was living up in Windsor, California cutting and drying fruit for their farmer's market. (Sadly, most of Windsor back then was prime growing land but developers saw to it that the land "grew" massive suburban sprawl McMansion housing.)
www.headstonesband.com
The opposition claims that the whales that are being struck by boats are the reason for them dying. We've had 3 necropsy's performed this summer alone.
As far a s the cables are concerned, we have cables coming into the city already from Island park to us in the channel so I never understood that one. I know it'll be in the ocean now but if you're that worried about it move down the beach further.
I do like tomatoes in the winter and a pomegranate in the summer. Shipped correctly we can lower emissions considerably.
California and the west coast are getting more extreme rain than previous times.
There should be more damns and reservoirs in place to collect the rain that falls. If new damns are in place that let migratory fish/animals pass then it would be a win win.
Maybe reintroduce pacific salmon to some areas too?
I never said that, L. I've made my points clear several times in this thread. Sorry bud, but I get tired of writing the same things over and over. But OK, one more time as briefly as I can make it:
-Drive less often, fewer miles. Live closer to work. No more pleasure boat, jets skis, etc.
-Stop flying.
-Take public transit.
-Take the train and advocate for railroads.
-Know the difference between want and need and consume less.
-When we do consume, go with durable, not cheap crap.
-Adjust the thermostat to reduce power usage.
-Solar panels on building are fine, no argument there. Cover the land with them is not.
-Some wind turbines if industrial areas might be feasible, but not covering the land.
-There are plenty of other ways to reduce consumption and energy uses. Anyone here could come up with several to add to my list.
your suggestions here are excellent, but are they possible? Have less kids? Have you seen our GOP topic recently and all the chit chat about Lauren Boebert? She already has four kids and did you see her operate on that first date? She probably has number five on the way! Seriously, if the protect climate folks start telling people how many kids to have, that could be disastrous politically. To protect the climate we need reps in power who want to do the same.
Trains make a lot of sense. Here in NY, we have the most extensive rail network on the continent. Problem is, it’s good to go to one place, Manhattan.
I think where we get caught up im thinking what is practical. We have the ability to generate clean energy with existing technology. That means a lot of windmills and solar panels . It’s going to require a lot of modernization to the infrastructure to distribute , but the tech exists, and it’s fairly popular with the electorate.
Unfortunately, without support from the population, great ideas could lead to disaster on any given Election Day.
Revealed: top carbon offset projects may not cut planet-heating emissions
Majority of offset projects that have sold the most carbon credits are ‘likely junk’, according to analysis by Corporate Accountability and the Guardian
The global, multibillion-dollar voluntary carbon trading industry has been embraced by governments, organisations and corporations including oil and gas companies, airlines, fast-food brands, fashion houses, tech firms, art galleries and universities as a way of claiming to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint.
It works by carbon offset credits being tradable “allowances” or certificates that allows the purchaser to compensate for 1 ton of carbon dioxide or the equivalent in greenhouse gases by investing in environmental projects that claim to reduce carbon emissions.
But there is mounting evidence suggesting that many of these offset schemes exaggerate climate benefits and underestimate potential harms.
In a new investigation, the Guardian and researchers from Corporate Accountability, a non-profit, transnational corporate watchdog, analysed the top 50 emission offset projects, those that have sold the most carbon credits in the global market.
According to our criteria and classification system:
A total of 39 of the top 50 emission offset projects, or 78% of them, were categorised as likely junk or worthless due to one or more fundamental failing that undermines its promised emission cuts.
Eight others (16%) look problematic, with evidence suggesting they may have at least one fundamental failing and are potentially junk, according to the classification system applied.
The efficacy of the remaining three projects (6%) could not be determined definitively as there was insufficient public, independent information to adequately assess the quality of the credits and/or accuracy of their claimed climate benefits.
Overall, $1.16bn (£937m) of carbon credits have been traded so far from the projects classified by the investigation as likely junk or worthless; a further $400m of credits bought and sold were potentially junk.
The 50 most popular global projects include forestry schemes, hydroelectric dams, solar and wind farms, waste disposal and greener household appliances schemes across 20 (mostly) developing countries, according to data from AlliedOffsets, the most comprehensive emissions trading database which tracks projects from inception. They account for almost a third of the entire global voluntary carbon market (VCM), suggesting that junk or overvalued carbon credits which exaggerate emission reduction benefits could be the norm.
In our analysis, a project was classified as likely junk if there was compelling evidence, claims or high risk that it cannot guarantee additional, permanent greenhouse gas cuts among other criteria. In some cases, there was evidence suggesting the project could leak greenhouse gas emissions or shift emissions elsewhere. In other cases, the climate benefits appeared to be exaggerated or the project would have happened independently – with or without the voluntary carbon market.
While it’s not European or Japanese scale train travel, it is movement in the right direction. And the reason passenger train travel is limited in scope and scale is because the rail lines have been devoted to freight trains and they take precedence. That’s slowly changing with upgrades such as additional tracks and passing zones, particularly in high traffic areas like the Northeast Corridor. It used to be 2 tracks to serve freight, commuter rail and Amtrak. In many places now it’s four. It’s beginning to change for the better but we’ll always be 20-30 years behind Europe and 50 behind China and Japan in this regard.
Gift article on the Brandon Crime family and private enterprise getting into the rail game.
https://wapo.st/3Zmb5yJ
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
gift article.
https://wapo.st/3rlrAys
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Always hoping for the best for US railways.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
That's some great news!