Green New Deal Discussion

[ChessPlayer]

10 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

I heavily edited your post to show what Im addressing. 

Folks make a big deal about how solar is wonderful. There are some realities to solar that we experience here in az where solar is everywhere. Solar farms (that is large areas of solar  panels) have a bad tendency to self ignite. Which is a big problem for firefighters because of the extreme dangers associated with the panels and batteries that store the power. The last fire in the phoenix area sent 8 firefighters to the hospital for extended stays. Then there is the issue of solar farms blinding pilots. They also increase local temperatures by a few degrees. 

For personal use, solar panels on the roof cost over 10,000 dollars (closer to 15,000). Now it is coming out that if you need roof repairs, and that happens often enough, then the panels have to come off and be replaced. A cost that is over 10,000 dollars. Few people can afford this. 

Extensive wind farms, besides the problems willa listed, has been shown to alter wind patterns. That isnt a good thing at all. 

There are a lot of problems with alternative energy that is glossed over by the green people.

 

If Willa doesn't mind I will try to address a lot of these concerns here. Renewable energy isn't perfect by any means. Everything is going to have an impact. The real question is how does the benefit compare to the impact. Let's deal with these by category. 

Wind - Personally I'm not a huge fan of wind power. Someone may change my mind but having worked in a renewable energy lab for years, I was never impressed by wind as a major source of power. As to the negatives however, I think they are being slightly exaggerated. According to a study from the National Research Council in 2007 there is no statistically relevant fraction of bird deaths caused by wind turbines. Do wind turbines kill birds? Of course. However, that number pales in comparison to damage done by oil production, high tension cables and even house cats. A further study in combination with avian experts in 2012 backed up this report. As to changing weather patterns, this has been largely debunked as well. Climatologists did a massive study on this back in Europe in 2014 which was published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. They concluded there was no statistically significant adverse impact from wind turbine farms (see Vautard et al, 2014). In other words, the impact has been blown out of proportion if you would pardon the pun. 

Solar - This I view as an ok option for renewables. There is some evidence of heating near solar farms as Ayin Jade mentions (see Barron-Gafford, et al. 2016 in Nature for more). However, it should be noted that there are confounding variables here such as land clearance and other factors that the researchers could not draw a statistically causal link. Additionally, although I'm sure there is a problem with photovoltaic cells and fires based on the chemical makeup of those cells, we should compare this with the risk of coal, oil and natural gas which are much more flammable due to the nature of the long carbon chains present. The major thing solar has going for it is the vast improvements it has made over the last decade. As with wind, there are problems but NRC studies once again show that these pale in comparison to the impact of fossil fuels.    

I favor a multifaceted approach. As I've mentioned, I'm a big fan of nuclear energy as modern nuclear power plants are remarkably safe and produce a vast amount of power in return for a small (although long-lasting) environmental impact in the form of waste material. Additionally, although other renewable sources do have downsides, these downsides are largely exaggerated and the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports a switch from fossil fuels to renewable sources even with the potential downsides.  

The Green New Deal in general does not favor any one particular form of renewable or long term energy solution over another. Criticisms of other forms of energy are certainly valid. However, as I mentioned before, I don't think the criticisms of these alternative sources of energy are on par with the criticisms of fossil fuels. Nor do I believe that these minor issues should cause us to abandon the Green New Deal as a model.  

[ENOCH2010]

59 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

This seems rather nihilistic or at the very least deterministic. Climate change won't end the world but it is causing significant hardship for people around the world and that is only going to get worse if we do nothing about it. If our job as humanity is caretakers of the planet then shouldn't we strive to protect creation rather than labeling it a non-issue? 

Man made climate change is a hoax the left is trying to force the world to believe. They have the millennial generation brain washed thinking we are destroying the planet, nothing we can do will effect the planet, we are only a speck on the stage. 

[ChessPlayer]

20 minutes ago, ENOCH2010 said:

Man made climate change is a hoax the left is trying to force the world to believe. They have the millennial generation brain washed thinking we are destroying the planet, nothing we can do will effect the planet, we are only a speck on the stage. 

Firstly, climate change is happening and the link to human actions is shown in numerous scientific studies. Some of the more famous studies include:

• B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes" 2003
• V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling" 2006
• Wrigley and Santer, "A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming" 2012

I could go on listing these studies forever but most people don't honestly have the time to read them. And that's ok. Honestly, speaking a chemist, scientists are abysmally poor communicators of even very serious and impactful data as we have to qualify everything with statistics. If you have time to read through a few of these, that's great. If not, I would suggest leaning on the expertise of people that have spent their life studying a subject.   

The impact of fossil fuels on CO2 production and other greenhouse gases has been known for around a century. I simply don't understand why people continue to ignore subject matter experts and years of research and deny the reality of climate change being linked to human activity. The only conclusion I have really reached is that people don't like being given bad news and having to change how they live as a result. 

However, while I can understand the gut reaction to not liking the scientific data available and wanting to ignore it, I cannot understand the idea that somehow this is all an elaborate hoax. Where is the evidence for such a massive conspiracy? Why would subject matter experts over at least half a century team up to do this? If scientists are all getting paid exorbitant amounts of money to lie where is my Lamborghini? And how in the world is this all coordinated? 

Your claims that this is all a hoax are frankly offensive. This isn't a partisan issue. This is simply the data we have. You can choose not to believe the data. That's fine. You do not have the right to disparage the work of these researchers by calling it a hoax without providing evidence for such a claim. That is simply out of line.    

[ayin jade]

3 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

Thanks for the numbering. It makes things certainly easier to follow. Although we may be able to lump 1 and 3 together as I do below.

1 and 3) Ok. So you are worried it is simply a lie/scam and that politicians will use it to get other things? This seems rather hypothetical to me and is rather hard to prove in my view. I know Rep. Ocasio-Cortez does self-identify as a democratic socialist. Is that what is causing you to worry that there will be wealth redistribution? There are also numerous cosponsors to the legislation who are not democratic socialists and the text of the bill mentions nothing about redistribution. Again, I don't really care all that much about the sponsors of the legislation but rather the stated goal and purpose of the legislation. In my view, it shouldn't matter who proposes an idea but rather if it is a good bill or not. In my view, the text of H.R. 109 sets forth a good goal for energy independence and environmental/economic improvement. I don't really want to go too far beyond the scope of the legislation proposed because that really gets us into more of a political/tribal discussion rather than a policy oriented conversation. 

2) As I mentioned previously, I certainly would not defend that quote if she did make those statements. And keeping electricity costs affordable is certainly important and mentioned in the text of H.R. 109. You and I are in complete agreement that electricity should be available at a reasonable rate to people living in the US. I would merely point out that we need to transition that energy from fossil fuels to renewable and nuclear sources very quickly. Hence, I believe the Green New Deal is the correct path.      

You keep using the word 'worry' with me. I do not worry. I do not think it is a hypothetical either. I am certain it is a scam based on rhetoric that has been around for over a decade regarding this topic. I also do not believe it would accomplish its stated green goal but instead only accomplish harm to the us. 

 

[ENOCH2010]

12 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

Firstly, climate change is happening and the link to human actions is shown in numerous scientific studies. Some of the more famous studies include:

• B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes" 2003
• V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling" 2006
• Wrigley and Santer, "A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming" 2012

I could go on listing these studies forever but most people don't honestly have the time to read them. And that's ok. Honestly, speaking a chemist, scientists are abysmally poor communicators of even very serious and impactful data as we have to qualify everything with statistics. If you have time to read through a few of these, that's great. If not, I would suggest leaning on the expertise of people that have spent their life studying a subject.   

The impact of fossil fuels on CO2 production and other greenhouse gases has been known for around a century. I simply don't understand why people continue to ignore subject matter experts and years of research and deny the reality of climate change being linked to human activity. The only conclusion I have really reached is that people don't like being given bad news and having to change how they live as a result. 

However, while I can understand the gut reaction to not liking the scientific data available and wanting to ignore it, I cannot understand the idea that somehow this is all an elaborate hoax. Where is the evidence for such a massive conspiracy? Why would subject matter experts over at least half a century team up to do this? If scientists are all getting paid exorbitant amounts of money to lie where is my Lamborghini? And how in the world is this all coordinated? 

Your claims that this is all a hoax are frankly offensive. This isn't a partisan issue. This is simply the data we have. You can choose not to believe the data. That's fine. You do not have the right to disparage the work of these researchers by calling it a hoax without providing evidence for such a claim. That is simply out of line.    

I'm sorry I offended you but I'll use the Bible as my data, it tells us the beginning and the ending of the planet Earth. I think we should leave God in control of things not the left wing.

[ChessPlayer]

13 hours ago, ayin jade said:

You keep using the word 'worry' with me. I do not worry. I do not think it is a hypothetical either. I am certain it is a scam based on rhetoric that has been around for over a decade regarding this topic. I also do not believe it would accomplish its stated green goal but instead only accomplish harm to the us. 

 

I am sorry if my use of "worry" and "hypothetical" in some way mischaracterized your position on the issue. I just don't see how, based on the text of the plans laid forth in H.R. 109, there is any evidence to suggest foul play. That's why I mostly see these objections as simply hypothetical. They rely on as of yet unproven ulterior motives. Again, I am merely suggesting that the idea of a Green New Deal is a good policy. I am not trying to defend any particular politician or political group. I am saying that the science indicates that we need a massive environmental and economic shift away from fossil fuels and towards other sources of energy in addition to other measures in order to combat climate change. Furthermore, I think this fits in line with a traditional Christian view of stewardship of God's creation. 

I welcome any objections or improvements regarding how we get to such a goal. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, there are flaws with pretty much every viable alternative energy source but these flaws simply cannot compare to the damage being done by fossil fuels. I fail to grasp how you are calculating a greater harm from this plan.  

[ChessPlayer]

3 hours ago, ENOCH2010 said:

I'm sorry I offended you but I'll use the Bible as my data, it tells us the beginning and the ending of the planet Earth. I think we should leave God in control of things not the left wing.

Again, I am not offended by your use of your Scripture nor is the idea of climate change in conflict with your idea of the beginning and ending of Earth. As I mentioned in my previous post, climate change will not end the Earth and that is not what scientists are saying. What they are saying is that massive environmental disaster awaits us if we keep going down our current path. This has the possibility to drastically increase the amount of refugees and poor in the world (see the IPCC report). Remember, we are charged by Christ to protect the poor and welcome the stranger. We should not be knowingly contributing to the future suffering of humanity. In my view, it would be antithetical to the teachings found in the Bible to continue to be poor stewards of creation.

However, I am somewhat annoyed by your continuing effort to push the idea of anthropogenic climate change as a hoax perpetuated by the left. That is simply misinformed. I presented you a number of articles in various scientific publications for your perusal in my previous post. As I have mentioned before, this should not be a partisan issue nor am I advocating for one party or political affiliation. Rather, as a concerned Christian and scientist, I fear that we, as a Christian community, are ignoring the threats posed by climate change to God's creation. Instead, we merely attack those along partisan lines rather than seeing if the ideas being presented on a particular issue are valid. In this case, the Green New Deal is being vilified by certain members of the Christian community simply because it was proposed by someone left of center. This ignores our charge of Christian stewardship.    

[ayin jade]

44 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

I am sorry if my use of "worry" and "hypothetical" in some way mischaracterized your position on the issue. I just don't see how, based on the text of the plans laid forth in H.R. 109, there is any evidence to suggest foul play. That's why I mostly see these objections as simply hypothetical. They rely on as of yet unproven ulterior motives. Again, I am merely suggesting that the idea of a Green New Deal is a good policy. I am not trying to defend any particular politician or political group. I am saying that the science indicates that we need a massive environmental and economic shift away from fossil fuels and towards other sources of energy in addition to other measures in order to combat climate change. Furthermore, I think this fits in line with a traditional Christian view of stewardship of God's creation. 

I welcome any objections or improvements regarding how we get to such a goal. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, there are flaws with pretty much every viable alternative energy source but these flaws simply cannot compare to the damage being done by fossil fuels. I fail to grasp how you are calculating a greater harm from this plan.  

The harm comes from the unrealistic expectations of it. It will cost people too much. It will destroy economies. It will cost lives. 

And then there is that social justice part of it. Please explain how that fits in with the green deal. It is right there as a stated goal in the bill. That is redistribution of wealth.

 

[ayin jade]

33 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

However, I am somewhat annoyed by your continuing effort to push the idea of anthropogenic climate change as a hoax perpetuated by the left. That is simply misinformed.

 

The data is repeatedly falsified. Emails from the ipcc have stated so. 

[ayin jade]

Every year around election time, various forums get folks signing up whose sole goal is to campaign for a candidate or issue. Nothing more than that. And it is their job to do so (volunteer and paid). It isnt an election year but it smells the same.