111–120 of 413 posts
If we cared about birds we would be talking about reducing car traffic and saving more areas for wildlife. The argument against Solar and Wind with regards to wildlife preservation is almost always a distraction.
The title is symptomatic for the climate discourse; either for or against oil/coal and wind/solar. I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.
Affordable is the trick, though - while I totally understand why that is important, sometimes it seems like we're going to end up saying: "Sorry we are going extinct... staying alive wasn't profitable." I know that is both an idealistic and hyperbolic take on things. The bigger point is that when people say "affordable", they often really mean "profitable". But we cannot afford not to fix the problems.
By definition, sustainability is a waste management, that allows recycling rates of 90% or higher. CO2 is just one of our waste products we totally didnt care about.
I want to believe, but this article is less than convincing without reading detail about the study’s methods. I didn’t see a link to the paper on my first read. When I decided to go back and get the author’s name, Economist’s paywall kicked in. If anybody can see the full article, it would be lovely if you put the name of the researcher in the comments so I can read the original paper.
It's easy to believe. The massive ecological destruction caused by the oil and gas industry is well documented. Whatever downsides there are to wind mills, pale in comparison to that.
So in your world we're going to do whatever because it can't be as bad? Sounds like a terrible plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Affordable is the trick, though - while I totally understand why that is important, sometimes it seems like we're going to end up saying: "Sorry we are going extinct... staying alive wasn't profitable." I know that is both an idealistic and hyperbolic take on things. The bigger point is that when people say "affordable", they often really mean "profitable". But we cannot afford not to fix the problems.
"Affordable" could also be taken as "doable". Which broadens the scope largely but misses the main problem: sustainability. This take is not just not helpful but, i would argue, actively harmful to the debate. By definition, sustainability is a waste management, that allows recycling rates of 90% or higher. CO2 is just one of our waste products we totally didnt care about.
How much of the GDP should we be willing to spend to actively replace pollution generating energy plants with lower polluting alternatives?
The title is symptomatic for the climate discourse; either for or against oil/coal and wind/solar. I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.
"Clean" and "affordable" map immediately and obviously onto wind and solar; what then happens is people engage in a lot of wrangling around "reliable" to push nuclear, requiring bending both "clean" and "affordable" quite a bit and running into an invisible other criteria of "quick to deploy" and "politically acceptable".
The local birds killed by oil drilling aren't even what we should be comparing to. Even if that number were zero, bird populations world still be better off in a world powered by wind turbines than oil and gas. Global warning is coming for birds too. Global warming poses an "existential threat for two thirds of North American bird species" [1] and obviously a similar proportion of bird species around the globe. 1. ht…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incredibly false. A typical "large" rig will need a 100m x 100m drill pad, roads to access which are often highly controlled during the design phase. A drilling rig will remain on location for MAYBE 30-40 days if it is a deep well (2000m-7000m). A completions rig (aka service rig) will come out afterwards to complete the well (install downhole equipment / frac / get the well ready for production). Lease may be a bit…
So 2-1/2 acres plus roads, instead of 5 acres, and you address how long, which OP didn't mention, in no way disputing him. Not a basis for leading with "incredibly false."
Just an exaggeration of 100%, no big deal?