Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's been necessary to prove it because of politics This is fascinating to me, how political ideology models the same type of arms race as parasite or bacteria. We're at the point of the game that we deny the opponent's mere existence , as the arms race devolves beyond addressing or refuting their views. Why work in the logical axis, where "green" solutions can have a carbon impact themselves. Instead, wash them aw…
Well, it’s really clear that wind energy pollutes less than natural gas, per kwh generated, once the plant is built. So then we looked at the costs for building the plant, where wind won again. So now we’re looking at the costs of building the materials that go into building the plant (a “second-order” effect), where, shockingly, wind wins again… against simply running the gas plant, excluding its cost of constructio…
yes, it does. So the far right can use the same semantic arguments (redefining words) as the far left. "wind energy pollutes", that's enough (for them).
I'm not taking that position, just showing how dirty politics becomes when you stop using logic and just go for the jugular with opponents instead of engage with them on a fair level. Again, the ones who engage fairly will die off - figuratively or literally. It's an arms race, or (whatever biologists call it when two bacteria evolve defenses and kill each other).