Would any climate change skeptics agree that clean energy and conservation is a good thing?
Plenty of people on this category vehemently deny that there is any problem with climate change, or, as a fall-back position, that climate change is real but it's not our fault.
My question for them: Aside from CO2 (the effects of which do not concern you), do you see any value in developing cleaner and less intrusive energy sources such as solar or wind, or are you advocates of such technologies as mountain-top removal for coal production, and petroleum production from oil sands, full speed ahead?
2010-12-29T09:02:21Z
As an update to the question, for those who say things like "wind only if it doesn't kill bats" or "solar only if there are no tax subsidies" how do you rank those concerns with similar issues from conventional sources, such as:
Coal - only if it doesn't pollute streams with mercury and give kids asthma? Nuclear - only if there are no government subsidies for it? Cats - only if they don't kill birds? :)
I find that often the "no tax subsidy" argument is used more often against renewable energy. Were any of you howling about "Tax-cut bill includes big boost for liquid coal?"
The main point of my question was to see whether people who vehemently disbelieve AGW see other advantages to renewables beyond CO2, such as cleaner air, water, greater energy independence, etc.
There have been a few thoughtful answers, and I thank you for those.
(And as a reply to the "CO2 is necessary for life" comment, witho
Dana19812010-12-28T11:56:07Z
Favorite Answer
Nobody is going to say that they're against solar and wind power. What 'skeptics' will say is that we shouldn't fund these alternative energy sources, we should just let the 'free market' sort it all out. In the end, the vast majority of global warming 'skeptics' are 'skeptical' because they oppose the solution to the problem, which involves government action (generally speaking, a price on carbon emissions). They tend to be basically libertarian in that they want the government to do as little as possible. That includes subsidizing alternative energy sources.
Of course there are major problems with that way of thinking. The first is that fossil fuels (and nuclear power) also get massive amounts of subsidies. The second problem is that new technologies are almost always more expensive than long-established technologies, which benefit from the economies of scale and advancements in research and development.
Burning coal is cheap because it's heavily subsidized, it's dirty and we don't pay for the full environmental cost of burning it, and it's a technology that's been around for over a century. If we just expect solar and wind and other renewables to compete with coal on their own in the so-called "free market", it will take a very long time for them to become widely-used, because most of the time people will choose the cheap source of energy.
The other issue is that renewable energy is beneficial for public health. Even if you deny man-made global warming, energy sources like wind and solar also provide clean air, clean water, and are powered by a virtually unlimited fuel source. Thus these renewable energy sources should be subsidized to increase their implementation for the general public good.
So ultimately the question is not whether you think solar and wind energy are a good thing, but rather whether you're willing to subsidize them to some degree. Most 'skeptics' are not, but they should be.
Yes, but there is a huge difference between guiding people to the better alternatives instead of pushing them there and then punishing the groups that are actually trying to clean up the environment while letting the Nations that care only about expanding their economies continue to have double digit year over year increases in all pollutants.
Finally, I can remember when mountain-top removal for coal production was changed so that the coal companies had to re-landscape when they were done. I also work with people who have been recently to both China and India and you could not pay them enough money to live there because of the pollution in these two Nations.
I mean, open your eyes, it is the environmentalists that are stopping both solar plants and wind farms stating destruction of the environment. You can't tell us to move to more Earth friendly power then tell us that we can't build them.
Clean energy and conservation are great. We did have an alternative clean energy source developed in the 1950's. Unfortunately its usage was first seen in ending World War II and now people equate nuclear energy with something bad. Nuclear energy has little of the problems climate change pushers worry about. No smoke, no burning of anything, no "carbon footprints'' or anything of that nature. And yes, we would reuse spent fuel rods, not bury them as some dumb politicians would have us do.
There are problems with many alternative energy sources. The manufacture of solar collectors leaves toxic industrial waste, wind farms are useless and they get turned off every so often. Seems to me that defeats the purpose. And the manufacture of batteries for electric cars needs a metal that brilliantly is only available in China and other politically unstable countries. Or countries of questionable alliance with the US.
As with solar and wind, power generation is dependent on weather. It's not always windy. And some parts of the North see cloudy days for weeks on end.
Climate difference is only one limitation amongst many. Taking those in combination, I see it as just like the Second World War. When the danger to the survival of the British persons used to be critical ample, a coalition executive used to be shaped and there have been no usual elections. Similarly, governments generally impose martial regulation if an emergency comparable to a wooded area hearth or different common crisis is a adequate danger. This will ultimately have got to occur. However, it's going to traditionally be too past due, persons will believe it is whatever just like the imposition of a NWO after which we will be able to all die in terrible pain. In reality, that'll traditionally occur besides given that of the disastrous dumbing down of the schooling procedure.
Yes it is a good thing if it is cheap like hydro electricity. Dams have been pumping out cheap energy for decades now. But solar nuclear and wind are a huge waste of money. And the wind generally doesn't blow when it is really hot or really cold and electricity demand is at a peak. We need to rely more on coal because it creates jobs in America, is cheap and very reliable.
I believe the theory of climate change has somehow morphed into a type of green cult. Make no mistake this cult is evil for they want to make us all poor by taking away our heat, transport, air conditioning, industry and modern agriculture.
Call it bad science, bad economics or what ever you want. I call it like I see it and I see an evil cult. These folks don't want to just destroy themselves like Jim Jones did in Jones-town they aim to destroy all humanity so the earth can become some kind of human free paradise. Does that sound like a cult to you?