brianlux said:

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:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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.

Climate Change from A to Z | The New Yorker

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.

brianlux said:

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. 

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-wind-power

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?

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

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. 

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-wind-power

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.

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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.

Climate Change from A to Z | The New Yorker

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. 

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

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. 

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-wind-power

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.