Do we have to destroy the world to save it?

[Secret Chief]

Of course, these are solvable problems and could have been solved sooner without can-kicking.

Do we ignore the impact climate change has on wildlife? Or do we progress and try to solve these problems.

Wind Power and Birds

"Audubon strongly supports wind power and recognizes that it will not be without some impact; however, harmful effects to birds and other wildlife can be avoided or significantly reduced in the following ways:

• Federal, state or local planning for wind energy in “low impact” areas where permitting can be more efficient
• Proper siting and operation of wind farms and equipment through federal and state guidelines
• Development of new technologies that help minimize harm to birds and other wildlife
• Mitigation of habitat and wildlife impacts through conservation measures;
• Strong enforcement of existing laws that protect wildlife, including the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
• Encouragement of wind developers and permitting agencies to consult with wildlife experts, including Audubon staff and chapters, to help inform study and siting decisions and to support efforts to improve wind siting and technological solutions to reduce harm to birds."

Indeed. One should not refrain from attempting to do some good because it is not a perfect solution. If we did, we'd sit on our hands till the water went over our heads.

 

[KW]

It's killing the planet. We need to stick with oil and coal. All the evidence in videos says that.

What video says that?

 

[KW]

You provide an orphan link (no accompanying argument) from a disreputable source. I looked at your other link yesterday for about a minute and found specious, tendentious argumentation, which is de rigueur for both conservative and Christian sites in general. I don't go to either for facts much less opinions. As I posted yesterday, I don't get my science from these people.

So what's the incentive to look at your video besides to identify the deception? That's a worthwhile exercise until one has learned to do it, but not thereafter.

Also, you denied global warming on the first page of this thread. That's a litmus test, like calling evolution only a theory, or calling coronavirus vaccines more dangerous than Covid.

And your use of the word leftist is pretty foreboding, especially when you claim they don't like facts. Do you call yourself and others like you rightists?

You are brainwashed and see what you want to see. I can’t help you with that.

 

[KW]

You provide an orphan link (no accompanying argument) from a disreputable source. I looked at your other link yesterday for about a minute and found specious, tendentious argumentation, which is de rigueur for both conservative and Christian sites in general. I don't go to either for facts much less opinions. As I posted yesterday, I don't get my science from these people.

So what's the incentive to look at your video besides to identify the deception? That's a worthwhile exercise until one has learned to do it, but not thereafter.

Also, you denied global warming on the first page of this thread. That's a litmus test, like calling evolution only a theory, or calling coronavirus vaccines more dangerous than Covid.

And your use of the word leftist is pretty foreboding, especially when you claim they don't like facts. Do you call yourself and others like you rightists?

I have not denied global warming. Read more carefully.

 

[Secret Chief]

What video says that?

Rightwing conspiracy bollocks videos in the main.

 

[KW]

I know that. I have been hearing this for decades from climate change deniers. As if this is the only way of measuring warming.

Infrared satellite imaging and atmospheric CO2 and methane concentrations are measurable. CO2 concentrations surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time ever.

CO2 has been 17 times higher in the past.

There is no significant link between CO2 level and warming. Historically CO2 level increases follow warming,

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I have not denied global warming. Read more carefully.

Even taking global warming out of the equation, the environmental and health impacts of fossil fuels should be weighed in with the claims of this video. Solar and wind are progressing and will likely improve on their impacts on the environment and wildlife. Fossil fuels, not so much:

Fact Sheet | Climate, Environmental, and Health Impacts of Fossil Fuels (2021) | White Papers | EESI

 

[KW]

Rightwing conspiracy bollocks videos in the main.

Michael Shellenberger created this video;

He is founder and president of Environmental Progress, an independent nonprofit research organization that incubates ideas, leaders, and movements. Michael is a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment," and Green Book Award winner. And he is cofounder of the California Peace Coalition, an alliance of parents of children killed by fentanyl, parents of homeless addicts, and recovering addicts.

Do We Have to Destroy the Earth to Save It? | PragerU

From the Founder of Environmental Progress.

What impact does green energy have on our natural world?

FYI
Michael Shellenberer created this video:

He is founder and president of Environmental Progress, an independent nonprofit research organization that incubates ideas, leaders, and movements. Michael is a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment," and Green Book Award winner. And he is cofounder of the California Peace Coalition, an alliance of parents of children killed by fentanyl, parents of homeless addicts, and recovering addicts.

 

[KW]

Rightwing conspiracy bollocks videos in the main.

Like this guy;

He is founder and president of Environmental Progress, an independent nonprofit research organization that incubates ideas, leaders, and movements. Michael is a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment," and Green Book Award winner. And he is cofounder of the California Peace Coalition, an alliance of parents of children killed by fentanyl, parents of homeless addicts, and recovering addicts.

 

[KW]

Even taking global warming out of the equation, the environmental and health impacts of fossil fuels should be weighed in with the claims of this video. Solar and wind are progressing and will likely improve on their impacts on the environment and wildlife. Fossil fuels, not so much:

Fact Sheet | Climate, Environmental, and Health Impacts of Fossil Fuels (2021) | White Papers | EESI

Not true. Fossil fuel energy production is exponentially cleaner than it was 30 years ago.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Not true. Fossil fuel energy production is exponentially cleaner than it was 30 years ago.

How about the future of it, as compared to solar and wind?

 

[KW]

How about the future of it, as compared to solar and wind?

We will run out of fossil fuels gradually over the next few hundred years. As we do we will continue to pursue alternate energy sources. Fossil fuels will increase in price as they become more rare making other options more attractive.

We don’t need government mandates for this to happen.

I like your user name, by the way.

 

[KW]

Skeptical of what?

 

[Father Heathen]

Facts annoy leftists.

So you're claiming that the scientific method - to which owe medicine and technology - has a liberal bias?

 

[Wandering Monk]

CO2 has been 17 times higher in the past.

There is no significant link between CO2 level and warming. Historically CO2 level increases follow warming,

What's your source for levels being 17 times higher in the past? How far in the past?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do We Have to Destroy the Earth to Save It? | PragerU

From the Founder of Environmental Progress.

What impact does green energy have on our natural world?

Die to save the world? No, I don't think so. We might, however, have to give up a few of the things we falsely imagine we can't live without.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We will run out of fossil fuels gradually over the next few hundred years. As we do we will continue to pursue alternate energy sources. Fossil fuels will increase in price as they become more rare making other options more attractive.

We don’t need government mandates for this to happen.

That's the key. Mandates.

Forcing inferior so called 'green' technology on people via mandate is pretty stupid and reckless.

I think there is a place for alternatives but proper development and testing is essential first. Not to mention impact studies.

Like the saying goes, if you develop a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Die to save the world? No, I don't think so. We might, however, have to give up a few of the things we falsely imagine we can't live without.

I think about that, and question those who are pushing green tech on other people, happen to personally use the green tech themselves exclusively?

Essentially lead by example.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think about that and question are those pushing green tech on other people, happen to personally use the green tech themselves?

We all hate to admit it -- but sadly, no, not really. Our "leaders" are dumping untold tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as the flit about the world have a few conversations and a lot of gourmet dinners.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We all hate to admit it -- but sadly, no, not really. Our "leaders" are dumping untold tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as the flit about the world have a few conversations and a lot of gourmet dinners.

Exactly.

I think in order to get people on board it would be paramount to see those leading the drive also lead by personal example.

If people see that in play, then it might not be such as tough a sell if the leadership demonstrates confidence in what they are proposing also incorporates on a personal level that it's the way to really go.