The down side of solar farms

brianlux

I have argued here against the assumed merits of solar farms in deserts.  My reasons is well supported in this article.  Deserts are not dead lands.  I fully believe we are losing more than we are gaining with these solar farms.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/21/solar-farms-energy-power-california-mojave-desert

mickeyrat

I think part of the answer here, is new construction be required to include solar as a means of powering that structure while feeding/selling excess into the grid.

and allow for incentives to retrofit existing structures. Local company here is selling and installing solar shingles.

As time goes on, the tech gets better and cheaper.

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

I think part of the answer here, is new construction be required to include solar as a means of powering that structure while feeding/selling excess into the grid.

and allow for incentives to retrofit existing structures. Local company here is selling and installing solar shingles.

As time goes on, the tech gets better and cheaper.

True- earlier versions of solar panels wore out quickly.

My argument is not that I'm against solar power, but that sacrificing our fragile desert ecosystems is unwise.  Instead of destroying these ecosystems, we could do a lot more to- first and foremost- cut down on energy use, and install solar panels or more roofs.  The buildings have already covered ground, so their roofs are a logical place to install panels.

It breaks my heart to see our deserts being destroyed.  Note in the article that we are not just destroying habit.  The installation of these massive plants is also creating a great deal of pollution and noise.

We can do better than this:

bootlegger10

Let me state that I'm not for extinction of animals.  But, if the scientists are right, 4 billion species have gone extinct in the history of the planet (how they know that I have not a clue).  Nature did that including some well timed asteroids and earthquakes.   Not humans (until more recently).  So, to protect humanity or our particular species, this would not be the first time a species of turtle goes extinct (or some other animal).  

I say this to provide some solace.  Humans are a part of nature and play the role of invasive species well.    

tempo_n_groove

You can look at it like this too Brian, eventually we will be inhabiting that space with buildings one day.

brianlux

bootlegger10 said:

Let me state that I'm not for extinction of animals.  But, if the scientists are right, 4 billion species have gone extinct in the history of the planet (how they know that I have not a clue).  Nature did that including some well timed asteroids and earthquakes.   Not humans (until more recently).  So, to protect humanity or our particular species, this would not be the first time a species of turtle goes extinct (or some other animal).  

I say this to provide some solace.  Humans are a part of nature and play the role of invasive species well.    

I cannot see using something random and unplanned like an asteroid or earthquake as an excuse for knowingly destroying nature and killing off so many species.  The other thing to keep in mind is that, by not respecting and living within nature's balances and cycles, we are creating our own premature demise.  We are the first (and probably last) to ever do this.  In that light, I believe we are actually not a part of nature.  We have disassociated our species from nature and we are a menace to the planet.  I find no solace in that.

tempo_n_groove said:

You can look at it like this too Brian, eventually we will be inhabiting that space with buildings one day.

Possibly, my friend, but not sustainably. 

bootlegger10

brianlux said:

bootlegger10 said:

Let me state that I'm not for extinction of animals.  But, if the scientists are right, 4 billion species have gone extinct in the history of the planet (how they know that I have not a clue).  Nature did that including some well timed asteroids and earthquakes.   Not humans (until more recently).  So, to protect humanity or our particular species, this would not be the first time a species of turtle goes extinct (or some other animal).  

I say this to provide some solace.  Humans are a part of nature and play the role of invasive species well.    

I cannot see using something random and unplanned like an asteroid or earthquake as an excuse for knowingly destroying nature and killing off so many species.  The other thing to keep in mind is that, by not respecting and living within nature's balances and cycles, we are creating our own premature demise.  We are the first (and probably last) to ever do this.  In that light, I believe we are actually not a part of nature.  We have disassociated our species from nature and we are a menace to the planet.  I find no solace in that.

tempo_n_groove said:

You can look at it like this too Brian, eventually we will be inhabiting that space with buildings one day.

Possibly, my friend, but not sustainably. 

As long as we aren’t some species put out here by a deity or aliens for an experiment, I think we are absolutely part of nature.  Plenty of invasive species out there that wipe out the ecosystem.  Humans just have a more evolved brain and harm the environment knowingly.  

Anyway, not meant to derail the thread.  

brianlux

bootlegger10 said:

brianlux said:

bootlegger10 said:

Let me state that I'm not for extinction of animals.  But, if the scientists are right, 4 billion species have gone extinct in the history of the planet (how they know that I have not a clue).  Nature did that including some well timed asteroids and earthquakes.   Not humans (until more recently).  So, to protect humanity or our particular species, this would not be the first time a species of turtle goes extinct (or some other animal).  

I say this to provide some solace.  Humans are a part of nature and play the role of invasive species well.    

I cannot see using something random and unplanned like an asteroid or earthquake as an excuse for knowingly destroying nature and killing off so many species.  The other thing to keep in mind is that, by not respecting and living within nature's balances and cycles, we are creating our own premature demise.  We are the first (and probably last) to ever do this.  In that light, I believe we are actually not a part of nature.  We have disassociated our species from nature and we are a menace to the planet.  I find no solace in that.

tempo_n_groove said:

You can look at it like this too Brian, eventually we will be inhabiting that space with buildings one day.

Possibly, my friend, but not sustainably. 

As long as we aren’t some species put out here by a deity or aliens for an experiment, I think we are absolutely part of nature.  Plenty of invasive species out there that wipe out the ecosystem.  Humans just have a more evolved brain and harm the environment knowingly.  

Anyway, not meant to derail the thread.  

Not derailed at all, no worries.  I see our discussion about humans and nature as part of a bigger whole that includes discussion about our relationship to nature and how our activities affect the planet.

I often feel inclined to need to apologize for coming across as a curmudgeon and doom sayer when talking about subjects like this.  I really am sorry about that!  I would be a lot more optimistic if we could just be more honest about how destructive our activities are (me included, of course- I have a computer, I have a car, etc.).  Instead, we pretend to be "green" by building electric cars and massive solar power arrays and so forth, as if those kinds of things are going to save us from our inevitable collision with depleted resources, pollution, and climate change- including global warming and catastrophic weather events that are happening more and more frequently. 

I'm not saying I'm against efforts to improve the environment.  I'm all for that and have been and advocate for the environment for several decades.  But those efforts simply are not enough.  I probably can't convince anyone of that.  By now, you or anyone else either agree with that or disagree.  If you disagree, I sincerely hope you are correct.  I suppose if I had any sense, I would probably just toss the whole bloody issue in the trash and go party 'til the end of my time.  You may have noticed I already do a lot less talking here about this kind of issue these days...

...and more about music, film and the arts because they are great antidotes to despair.  For example, I rocked out big-time on this killer album earlier today (talk about derailing the thread, lol!):

mickeyrat

  https://apnews.com/article/india-solar-hospitals-renewable-energy-climate-change-5469ad61650403fb4024911456daf06a

 

By Sibi Arasu

Today

RAICHUR, India (AP) — In the searing heat that often envelops Raichur, an ancient town in southern India, a ceiling fan that spins without interruption brings sweet relief for the newborn babies and their mothers at the Government Maternity Hospital.

But such respite wasn't always guaranteed in a region where frequent power cuts to India's overmatched electrical grid can last hours. It wasn't until the hospital installed rooftop solar panels a year ago that it could depend on constant electricity that keeps the lights on, patients and staff comfortable and vaccines and medicines safely refrigerated.

The diesel generator that used to provide emergency backup — spewing planet-warming gases and toxic smoke within breathing distance of newborns every time it was running — is gone. So is the need to use flashlights to see during one of the hospital's roughly 600 births per year, as staff sometimes had to do amid a sudden blackout if the old generators weren't working.

For Martha Jones, a senior nurse who has helped deliver countless babies, the reliability that solar has brought has been a revelation.

“We don't even know when power is cut or when it has come back,” Jones said.

Rooftop solar panels sit atop a government maternity hospital to provide electricity, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

An optometrist checks the eyesight of an elderly woman at a health care center which runs on rooftop solar power, near Raichur, India, Thursday, April 20, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

A senior nurse uses a stethoscope to examine Sandhya Shivappa, 25, who is nine months pregnant, at a government maternity hospital which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Tuesday, April 18, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Sandhya Shivappa, 25, who is nine months pregnant, lies on her side while having labor pain as she waits to deliver at a government maternity hospital which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Tuesday, April 18, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

In semi-urban and rural regions of India and other developing countries with unreliable power grids, decentralized renewable energy — especially solar — is making all the difference in delivering modern health care. And it's becoming even more indispensable where heat and weather extremes are increasing due to climate change. In Raichur, for example, temperatures can soar to 42 degrees Celsius (107 degrees Fahrenheit) in the warmest months.

The hospital, Government Maternity, a bare-bones facility that serves thousands who can’t afford private health care, is one of 251 medical facilities in the Raichur district that runs on rooftop solar under a program spearheaded by Selco Foundation. The Bengaluru-based not-for-profit has raised funds from Indian and international corporations and coordinated with the local government since 2017.

It costs about $8,500 to install a system at public health care centers, including lead-acid batteries that store power for use at night. Smaller clinics run closer to about $2,000. The sites remain connected to the power grid, but only as a backup to the solar.

Sandhya Shivappa, 25, breastfeeds her baby girl as she rests a day after her delivery at a government maternity hospital which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023.(AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Charulatha Jambaiah, right, reacts as she holds the baby girl of her sister Sandhya Shivappa, sitting next to her, with other relatives a day after she was born at the government maternity hospital which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Some of Government Maternity's patients, like 25-year-old Sandhya Shivappa, said they knew little or nothing about the hospital's use of solar power and were simply grateful for its free services.

“We would be paying 30,000 rupees ($367) if I wanted to deliver my baby at a private hospital,” said Sandhya Shivappa, a 25-year-old who had just delivered a healthy baby girl when a reporter visited.

Shifting the hospitals and clinics to clean energy helps cut emissions in a sector that accounts for about 4.4% of the global figure, according to a study by Health Care Without Harm, an international nonprofit that advocates to reduce that. And that fits broader goals in India, the world’s most populous nation and the third-largest emitter of planet-warming gases.

While India currently relies heavily on coal for its electricity, it has a target of installing 450 gigawatts of renewable energy that should account for about half its needs by the end of this decade. Rapid increase in solar, especially rooftop solar, will be necessary to meet that goal.

Birds fly at sunset over rooftop solar panels installed at a government maternity hospital to provide electricity, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Hanumantappa Channadaser, Selco's branch manager, works in a room filled with batteries which supply the power generated from rooftop solar panels installed at the government maternity hospital, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

India has currently only installed about one-fourth of the 40 gigawatts of rooftop solar that policymakers had planned to have by last year. Supply chain issues and taxes on imported components — intended to protect domestic makers — have contributed to that shortfall. But India has also constantly reiterated the importance of getting money from developed countries and multilateral development banks to help achieve its climate goals.

Besides providing uninterrupted power, the rooftop solar is helping the medical facilities cut costs. In nearby Zaheerabad, a low-income neighborhood, Dr. Kavyashree Sugur said the public health center she oversees has paid at least 50% less for electricity in the two years since installing solar panels.

That's a big benefit in a country that is among the lowest spenders on health care in the world — India spends just a little more than 2% of its national budget on health care, compared to the United States' 18% — and many hospitals and health clinics are cash-strapped.

(AP Video/Dheeraj Aithal)

The addition of solar to health care centers in remote regions has been especially important for villagers who don't have the time or money to visit hospitals in the city, and likely would have simply gone without health care, said Hanumantappa Channadaser, Selco's branch manager in Raichur.

“Before solar, people were apprehensive to visit these hospitals because of power shortages and they didn’t have faith in the treatment they might get," Channadaser said.

A nurse checks the blood pressure of Shireen Fatima, who is four months pregnant, during her routine checkup at Zaheerabad health care center which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Blood samples of patients are placed for testing at Zaheerabad health care center which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

A pregnant woman who had come for her routine checkup looks at the batteries used with rooftop solar to provide electricity to Zaheerabad health care center, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

An elderly woman reacts after seeing a newly born baby of her relative at a government maternity hospital which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Recently, Selco, the Ikea Foundation and the Indian health ministry announced that they will set up solar power for 25,000 government health care facilities across 12 Indian states by 2026. Ikea has committed $48 million to the project. Selco is also working with the International Renewable Energy Agency and World Health Organization in Africa to scale up decentralized solar for health facilities on that continent.

Shireen Fatima, who was four months pregnant and visiting the Zaheerabad health care center for a checkup, said she appreciates how “blood tests, tablets, everything is free here." The hospital's shift to solar energy is “definitely good,” she added.

"If the hospital is saving on bills, the benefits will be for us too,” she said.

A girl carries the son of her sister who is being treated at Zaheerabad health care center which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

___

This story has corrected one of the funders of a program to bring more solar power to health care facilities to the Ikea Foundation, rather than the Ikea company.

___

Follow Sibi Arasu on Twitter at @sibi123

___

Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

  https://apnews.com/article/india-solar-hospitals-renewable-energy-climate-change-5469ad61650403fb4024911456daf06a

 

By Sibi Arasu

Today

RAICHUR, India (AP) — In the searing heat that often envelops Raichur, an ancient town in southern India, a ceiling fan that spins without interruption brings sweet relief for the newborn babies and their mothers at the Government Maternity Hospital.

But such respite wasn't always guaranteed in a region where frequent power cuts to India's overmatched electrical grid can last hours. It wasn't until the hospital installed rooftop solar panels a year ago that it could depend on constant electricity that keeps the lights on, patients and staff comfortable and vaccines and medicines safely refrigerated.

The diesel generator that used to provide emergency backup — spewing planet-warming gases and toxic smoke within breathing distance of newborns every time it was running — is gone. So is the need to use flashlights to see during one of the hospital's roughly 600 births per year, as staff sometimes had to do amid a sudden blackout if the old generators weren't working.

For Martha Jones, a senior nurse who has helped deliver countless babies, the reliability that solar has brought has been a revelation.

“We don't even know when power is cut or when it has come back,” Jones said.

Rooftop solar panels sit atop a government maternity hospital to provide electricity, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

An optometrist checks the eyesight of an elderly woman at a health care center which runs on rooftop solar power, near Raichur, India, Thursday, April 20, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

A senior nurse uses a stethoscope to examine Sandhya Shivappa, 25, who is nine months pregnant, at a government maternity hospital which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Tuesday, April 18, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Sandhya Shivappa, 25, who is nine months pregnant, lies on her side while having labor pain as she waits to deliver at a government maternity hospital which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Tuesday, April 18, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

In semi-urban and rural regions of India and other developing countries with unreliable power grids, decentralized renewable energy — especially solar — is making all the difference in delivering modern health care. And it's becoming even more indispensable where heat and weather extremes are increasing due to climate change. In Raichur, for example, temperatures can soar to 42 degrees Celsius (107 degrees Fahrenheit) in the warmest months.

The hospital, Government Maternity, a bare-bones facility that serves thousands who can’t afford private health care, is one of 251 medical facilities in the Raichur district that runs on rooftop solar under a program spearheaded by Selco Foundation. The Bengaluru-based not-for-profit has raised funds from Indian and international corporations and coordinated with the local government since 2017.

It costs about $8,500 to install a system at public health care centers, including lead-acid batteries that store power for use at night. Smaller clinics run closer to about $2,000. The sites remain connected to the power grid, but only as a backup to the solar.

Sandhya Shivappa, 25, breastfeeds her baby girl as she rests a day after her delivery at a government maternity hospital which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023.(AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Charulatha Jambaiah, right, reacts as she holds the baby girl of her sister Sandhya Shivappa, sitting next to her, with other relatives a day after she was born at the government maternity hospital which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Some of Government Maternity's patients, like 25-year-old Sandhya Shivappa, said they knew little or nothing about the hospital's use of solar power and were simply grateful for its free services.

“We would be paying 30,000 rupees ($367) if I wanted to deliver my baby at a private hospital,” said Sandhya Shivappa, a 25-year-old who had just delivered a healthy baby girl when a reporter visited.

Shifting the hospitals and clinics to clean energy helps cut emissions in a sector that accounts for about 4.4% of the global figure, according to a study by Health Care Without Harm, an international nonprofit that advocates to reduce that. And that fits broader goals in India, the world’s most populous nation and the third-largest emitter of planet-warming gases.

While India currently relies heavily on coal for its electricity, it has a target of installing 450 gigawatts of renewable energy that should account for about half its needs by the end of this decade. Rapid increase in solar, especially rooftop solar, will be necessary to meet that goal.

Birds fly at sunset over rooftop solar panels installed at a government maternity hospital to provide electricity, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Hanumantappa Channadaser, Selco's branch manager, works in a room filled with batteries which supply the power generated from rooftop solar panels installed at the government maternity hospital, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

India has currently only installed about one-fourth of the 40 gigawatts of rooftop solar that policymakers had planned to have by last year. Supply chain issues and taxes on imported components — intended to protect domestic makers — have contributed to that shortfall. But India has also constantly reiterated the importance of getting money from developed countries and multilateral development banks to help achieve its climate goals.

Besides providing uninterrupted power, the rooftop solar is helping the medical facilities cut costs. In nearby Zaheerabad, a low-income neighborhood, Dr. Kavyashree Sugur said the public health center she oversees has paid at least 50% less for electricity in the two years since installing solar panels.

That's a big benefit in a country that is among the lowest spenders on health care in the world — India spends just a little more than 2% of its national budget on health care, compared to the United States' 18% — and many hospitals and health clinics are cash-strapped.

(AP Video/Dheeraj Aithal)

The addition of solar to health care centers in remote regions has been especially important for villagers who don't have the time or money to visit hospitals in the city, and likely would have simply gone without health care, said Hanumantappa Channadaser, Selco's branch manager in Raichur.

“Before solar, people were apprehensive to visit these hospitals because of power shortages and they didn’t have faith in the treatment they might get," Channadaser said.

A nurse checks the blood pressure of Shireen Fatima, who is four months pregnant, during her routine checkup at Zaheerabad health care center which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Blood samples of patients are placed for testing at Zaheerabad health care center which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

A pregnant woman who had come for her routine checkup looks at the batteries used with rooftop solar to provide electricity to Zaheerabad health care center, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

An elderly woman reacts after seeing a newly born baby of her relative at a government maternity hospital which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Recently, Selco, the Ikea Foundation and the Indian health ministry announced that they will set up solar power for 25,000 government health care facilities across 12 Indian states by 2026. Ikea has committed $48 million to the project. Selco is also working with the International Renewable Energy Agency and World Health Organization in Africa to scale up decentralized solar for health facilities on that continent.

Shireen Fatima, who was four months pregnant and visiting the Zaheerabad health care center for a checkup, said she appreciates how “blood tests, tablets, everything is free here." The hospital's shift to solar energy is “definitely good,” she added.

"If the hospital is saving on bills, the benefits will be for us too,” she said.

A girl carries the son of her sister who is being treated at Zaheerabad health care center which runs on rooftop solar power, in Raichur, India, Wednesday, April 19, 2023. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

___

This story has corrected one of the funders of a program to bring more solar power to health care facilities to the Ikea Foundation, rather than the Ikea company.

___

Follow Sibi Arasu on Twitter at @sibi123

___

Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Rooftop solar panels-- great idea! 

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1662447804453732354?t=dyDkUaCdAq_Y_yed1og-FA&s=19

Lerxst1992

bootlegger10 said:

brianlux said:

bootlegger10 said:

Let me state that I'm not for extinction of animals.  But, if the scientists are right, 4 billion species have gone extinct in the history of the planet (how they know that I have not a clue).  Nature did that including some well timed asteroids and earthquakes.   Not humans (until more recently).  So, to protect humanity or our particular species, this would not be the first time a species of turtle goes extinct (or some other animal).  

I say this to provide some solace.  Humans are a part of nature and play the role of invasive species well.    

I cannot see using something random and unplanned like an asteroid or earthquake as an excuse for knowingly destroying nature and killing off so many species.  The other thing to keep in mind is that, by not respecting and living within nature's balances and cycles, we are creating our own premature demise.  We are the first (and probably last) to ever do this.  In that light, I believe we are actually not a part of nature.  We have disassociated our species from nature and we are a menace to the planet.  I find no solace in that.

tempo_n_groove said:

You can look at it like this too Brian, eventually we will be inhabiting that space with buildings one day.

Possibly, my friend, but not sustainably. 

As long as we aren’t some species put out here by a deity or aliens for an experiment, I think we are absolutely part of nature.  Plenty of invasive species out there that wipe out the ecosystem.  Humans just have a more evolved brain and harm the environment knowingly.  

Anyway, not meant to derail the thread.  

Be better off powering with coal over solar panels anyway.

brianlux

Lerxst1992 said:

bootlegger10 said:

brianlux said:

bootlegger10 said:

Let me state that I'm not for extinction of animals.  But, if the scientists are right, 4 billion species have gone extinct in the history of the planet (how they know that I have not a clue).  Nature did that including some well timed asteroids and earthquakes.   Not humans (until more recently).  So, to protect humanity or our particular species, this would not be the first time a species of turtle goes extinct (or some other animal).  

I say this to provide some solace.  Humans are a part of nature and play the role of invasive species well.    

I cannot see using something random and unplanned like an asteroid or earthquake as an excuse for knowingly destroying nature and killing off so many species.  The other thing to keep in mind is that, by not respecting and living within nature's balances and cycles, we are creating our own premature demise.  We are the first (and probably last) to ever do this.  In that light, I believe we are actually not a part of nature.  We have disassociated our species from nature and we are a menace to the planet.  I find no solace in that.

tempo_n_groove said:

You can look at it like this too Brian, eventually we will be inhabiting that space with buildings one day.

Possibly, my friend, but not sustainably. 

As long as we aren’t some species put out here by a deity or aliens for an experiment, I think we are absolutely part of nature.  Plenty of invasive species out there that wipe out the ecosystem.  Humans just have a more evolved brain and harm the environment knowingly.  

Anyway, not meant to derail the thread.  

Be better off powering with coal over solar panels anyway.

You have me scratching my head on that one, L.  How do you figure burning coal is better than solar panels?

Lerxst1992

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

bootlegger10 said:

brianlux said:

bootlegger10 said:

Let me state that I'm not for extinction of animals.  But, if the scientists are right, 4 billion species have gone extinct in the history of the planet (how they know that I have not a clue).  Nature did that including some well timed asteroids and earthquakes.   Not humans (until more recently).  So, to protect humanity or our particular species, this would not be the first time a species of turtle goes extinct (or some other animal).  

I say this to provide some solace.  Humans are a part of nature and play the role of invasive species well.    

I cannot see using something random and unplanned like an asteroid or earthquake as an excuse for knowingly destroying nature and killing off so many species.  The other thing to keep in mind is that, by not respecting and living within nature's balances and cycles, we are creating our own premature demise.  We are the first (and probably last) to ever do this.  In that light, I believe we are actually not a part of nature.  We have disassociated our species from nature and we are a menace to the planet.  I find no solace in that.

tempo_n_groove said:

You can look at it like this too Brian, eventually we will be inhabiting that space with buildings one day.

Possibly, my friend, but not sustainably. 

As long as we aren’t some species put out here by a deity or aliens for an experiment, I think we are absolutely part of nature.  Plenty of invasive species out there that wipe out the ecosystem.  Humans just have a more evolved brain and harm the environment knowingly.  

Anyway, not meant to derail the thread.  

Be better off powering with coal over solar panels anyway.

You have me scratching my head on that one, L.  How do you figure burning coal is better than solar panels?

A bad pun because the prior poster seemed to normalize some extinctions. And I reckon boots10 may be a fan of coal.

brianlux

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

bootlegger10 said:

brianlux said:

bootlegger10 said:

Let me state that I'm not for extinction of animals.  But, if the scientists are right, 4 billion species have gone extinct in the history of the planet (how they know that I have not a clue).  Nature did that including some well timed asteroids and earthquakes.   Not humans (until more recently).  So, to protect humanity or our particular species, this would not be the first time a species of turtle goes extinct (or some other animal).  

I say this to provide some solace.  Humans are a part of nature and play the role of invasive species well.    

I cannot see using something random and unplanned like an asteroid or earthquake as an excuse for knowingly destroying nature and killing off so many species.  The other thing to keep in mind is that, by not respecting and living within nature's balances and cycles, we are creating our own premature demise.  We are the first (and probably last) to ever do this.  In that light, I believe we are actually not a part of nature.  We have disassociated our species from nature and we are a menace to the planet.  I find no solace in that.

tempo_n_groove said:

You can look at it like this too Brian, eventually we will be inhabiting that space with buildings one day.

Possibly, my friend, but not sustainably. 

As long as we aren’t some species put out here by a deity or aliens for an experiment, I think we are absolutely part of nature.  Plenty of invasive species out there that wipe out the ecosystem.  Humans just have a more evolved brain and harm the environment knowingly.  

Anyway, not meant to derail the thread.  

Be better off powering with coal over solar panels anyway.

You have me scratching my head on that one, L.  How do you figure burning coal is better than solar panels?

A bad pun because the prior poster seemed to normalize some extinctions. And I reckon boots10 may be a fan of coal.

LOL, I'm a bit slow on the uptake these days.  Well played, L!

bootlegger10

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

bootlegger10 said:

brianlux said:

bootlegger10 said:

Let me state that I'm not for extinction of animals.  But, if the scientists are right, 4 billion species have gone extinct in the history of the planet (how they know that I have not a clue).  Nature did that including some well timed asteroids and earthquakes.   Not humans (until more recently).  So, to protect humanity or our particular species, this would not be the first time a species of turtle goes extinct (or some other animal).  

I say this to provide some solace.  Humans are a part of nature and play the role of invasive species well.    

I cannot see using something random and unplanned like an asteroid or earthquake as an excuse for knowingly destroying nature and killing off so many species.  The other thing to keep in mind is that, by not respecting and living within nature's balances and cycles, we are creating our own premature demise.  We are the first (and probably last) to ever do this.  In that light, I believe we are actually not a part of nature.  We have disassociated our species from nature and we are a menace to the planet.  I find no solace in that.

tempo_n_groove said:

You can look at it like this too Brian, eventually we will be inhabiting that space with buildings one day.

Possibly, my friend, but not sustainably. 

As long as we aren’t some species put out here by a deity or aliens for an experiment, I think we are absolutely part of nature.  Plenty of invasive species out there that wipe out the ecosystem.  Humans just have a more evolved brain and harm the environment knowingly.  

Anyway, not meant to derail the thread.  

Be better off powering with coal over solar panels anyway.

You have me scratching my head on that one, L.  How do you figure burning coal is better than solar panels?

A bad pun because the prior poster seemed to normalize some extinctions. And I reckon boots10 may be a fan of coal.

No, not a fan of coal.  I want to keep the Earth the habitable place it is today. For sure don’t trust corporations to do that, and trust government about as much as I do corporations.  

Selfishly I want to keep the planet for the humans.  But I think whatever happens is just part of the natural process of nature.  Mars may be uninhabitable, but is that good or bad?   Bad from the lens of humanity, I guess.  Humans getting too far ahead of themselves and rendering themselves extinct sounds like nature to me.   

Not making excuses to say we shouldn’t do anything.   I just think when people say we need to save the planet they really are saying we need to save the planet for humans, because an Earth that is not habitable for humans is no less Earth than it is today.   

brianlux

bootlegger10 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

bootlegger10 said:

brianlux said:

bootlegger10 said:

Let me state that I'm not for extinction of animals.  But, if the scientists are right, 4 billion species have gone extinct in the history of the planet (how they know that I have not a clue).  Nature did that including some well timed asteroids and earthquakes.   Not humans (until more recently).  So, to protect humanity or our particular species, this would not be the first time a species of turtle goes extinct (or some other animal).  

I say this to provide some solace.  Humans are a part of nature and play the role of invasive species well.    

I cannot see using something random and unplanned like an asteroid or earthquake as an excuse for knowingly destroying nature and killing off so many species.  The other thing to keep in mind is that, by not respecting and living within nature's balances and cycles, we are creating our own premature demise.  We are the first (and probably last) to ever do this.  In that light, I believe we are actually not a part of nature.  We have disassociated our species from nature and we are a menace to the planet.  I find no solace in that.

tempo_n_groove said:

You can look at it like this too Brian, eventually we will be inhabiting that space with buildings one day.

Possibly, my friend, but not sustainably. 

As long as we aren’t some species put out here by a deity or aliens for an experiment, I think we are absolutely part of nature.  Plenty of invasive species out there that wipe out the ecosystem.  Humans just have a more evolved brain and harm the environment knowingly.  

Anyway, not meant to derail the thread.  

Be better off powering with coal over solar panels anyway.

You have me scratching my head on that one, L.  How do you figure burning coal is better than solar panels?

A bad pun because the prior poster seemed to normalize some extinctions. And I reckon boots10 may be a fan of coal.

No, not a fan of coal.  I want to keep the Earth the habitable place it is today. For sure don’t trust corporations to do that, and trust government about as much as I do corporations.  

Selfishly I want to keep the planet for the humans.  But I think whatever happens is just part of the natural process of nature.  Mars may be uninhabitable, but is that good or bad?   Bad from the lens of humanity, I guess.  Humans getting too far ahead of themselves and rendering themselves extinct sounds like nature to me.   

Not making excuses to say we shouldn’t do anything.   I just think when people say we need to save the planet they really are saying we need to save the planet for humans, because an Earth that is not habitable for humans is no less Earth than it is today.   

I'm glad you care about the planet and see that coal is not the way to go.  I get it that both corporations and gov are difficult to put ones trust in.  I think the biggest difference is that (in theory at least) government is more apt to respond to our desires.  Corporations (for the most part) exist simply to make as much profit as possible... and elect people in congress who will help  them do that so, yes, a somewhat viscous circle- but that's why we need more well informed voters. 

If we are selfish about wanting to keep the planet for humans, that's understandable- we all want to live, right?  But the catch here is that the Earth doesn't exist simply and/or solely for us.  We are a part of the web of life and the more we insist on trying to live outside that web, the quicker we bring on our own demise.  I'm one of those people who would argue that all life has an equal right to life (what is sometimes referred to as being "biocentric"), but even if we just look at our own selfish desire to exist, we cannot do that without living within nature's parameters.  We think we can live outside those limits, but that's just not the case.  And that thinking has become predominant among our species and threatens to become our own undoing. 

Interesting what you're saying about "I just think when people say we need to save the planet they really are saying we need to save the planet for humans...
[Right! That's where our selfish desire comes in, and it's not a biocentric perspective],
...because an Earth that is not habitable for humans is no less Earth than it is today"

[Very much so but, sadly,  if Earth is not habitable for humans, that means we will be wiping out large number of other mammal as well. And that just seems wrong to me.]

bootlegger10

My points are "pointless" at the end of the day as we should try to do right by the planet and humanity at the same time.   Just think at the end of the day humans are just like any other invasive species that can wreak havoc on its environment if not managed appropriately. 

brianlux

bootlegger10 said:

My points are "pointless" at the end of the day as we should try to do right by the planet and humanity at the same time.   Just think at the end of the day humans are just like any other invasive species that can wreak havoc on its environment if not managed appropriately. 

What species do you know of that has (or is even capable of) wrecked havoc on the entire planet- I mean the entire planet, terra firma, oceans, the atmosphere- the whole ball of wax?  We are so not like any other species, especially considering when know what we are doing and can make conscious decisions about our actions.  Homo sapiens are the worst plague this planet has ever dealt with.

bootlegger10

According to Neal Degrass Tyson humans share about 99% of the same DNA with chimps.  So we aren’t that evolved.  All I am saying is that humans are a part of nature and what we do is all part of the evolutionary process (good or bad) that is nature.  To say humans are different than any other animal is to me to imply that they were put here by a deity or alien.  

I am just philosophizing when your thread was making an actual point.   

You mentioned government was more trustworthy.  This is an example where government pushes for solar and gives massive credits to do so, and then we find out the harmful effects later on down the road.  I will grant you that government is likely more for the people, but doesn’t make me want to trust them anymore than I have to

brianlux

bootlegger10 said:

According to Neal Degrass Tyson humans share about 99% of the same DNA with chimps.  So we aren’t that evolved.  All I am saying is that humans are a part of nature and what we do is all part of the evolutionary process (good or bad) that is nature.  To say humans are different than any other animal is to me to imply that they were put here by a deity or alien.  

I am just philosophizing when your thread was making an actual point.   

You mentioned government was more trustworthy.  This is an example where government pushes for solar and gives massive credits to do so, and then we find out the harmful effects later on down the road.  I will grant you that government is likely more for the people, but doesn’t make me want to trust them anymore than I have to

I have often been intrigued by what makes us different from all other animals.  Namely:

-Our ability to engage in complex reasoning.
-Our use of complex language.

-Our self-awareness.

-Our ability to solve complex problems.

-Introspection: our ability to describe our thoughts and feelings. 

Those- especially taken together- make us quite a bit different from other animals.  Only whales and dolphins come close, and even they lack some of these distinguishing characteristics. 

So, well, how did we get here?  I dunno.  Maybe David Byrne might know.  To me it's a Mystery, capital "M",  Mystery.  But it is what it is regardless, and we have the ability to make choices and yet we don't make wise choices (vast solar farms in deserts, the topic at hand, what I see as a good example) and thus we risk causing our own extinction which other species generally don't do.  So maybe for that reason alone we are a lower species. I could see an argument for that.