Do you support fracking like Kamala Harris, or oppose it like Kamala Harris?

just_sayin

I think Harris is actually against fracking but knows that if she says that she will lose Pennsylvania, which she needs to win the election.

Not only is fracking important to the 100,000 jobs in Pennsylvania,  Each person who uses natural gas has savings ranging from $181 to $432 per person annually depending on the area. Other sources of energy cost much more, and make electric and gas prices higher.  Plus it raises the cost of anything that uses electricity and transportation  - which is every good and service.  

jack

just_sayin said:

Do you support fracking like Kamala Harris, or oppose it like Kamala Harris?

Hello again, just_:

Couple things..  I dunno how or why her policy on fracking changed..  Maybe she's like me.  I LOVED fracking.  Then I found out that fracking is bad for the environment, so I stopped loving it.   I LOVED Trump the TV star.  But, I don't love Trump the politician.  

Look..  Support his orange hair.  Support his acumen for money.  Support his golden tennis shoe company, or buy one of his Trump steaks.   But, to support his LYING is making you look silly.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha.

excon

just_sayin

jack said:

just_sayin said:

Do you support fracking like Kamala Harris, or oppose it like Kamala Harris?

Hello again, just_:

Couple things..  I dunno how or why her policy on fracking changed..  Maybe she's like me.  I LOVED fracking.  Then I found out that fracking is bad for the environment, so I stopped loving it.   I LOVED Trump the TV star.  But, I don't love Trump the politician.  

Look..  Support his orange hair.  Support his acumen for money.  Support his golden tennis shoe company, or buy one of his Trump steaks.   But, to support his LYING is making you look silly.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha.

excon

Fracking is much better for the environment than coal.  It is why the US was able to meet UN goals - even though the US was no longer participating, and no other industrialized country met their goal.  

Delilah6120

@just_sayin

I think Harris is actually against fracking but knows that if she says that she will lose Pennsylvania, which she needs to win the election.

Not only is fracking important to the 100,000 jobs in Pennsylvania,  Each person who uses natural gas has savings ranging from $181 to $432 per person annually depending on the area. Other sources of energy cost much more, and make electric and gas prices higher.  Plus it raises the cost of anything that uses electricity and transportation  - which is every good and service.  

She either changed her opposition to fracking because a) since her initial stance, she has learned that while we have to ease into renewable energy, we cannot wean totally from other sources of energy abruptly or b) winning PA is important because saving democracy is crucial and these are unprecedented times due to the other presidential candidate being unfit and dangerous to our democracy.

Someone is going to get hurt no matter what change is implemented. Renewable energy is the energy of the future and we must wean ourselves from coal and fracking eventually. Fracking has pros and cons. Pros: fracking produces gas and oil making us less dependent on foreign countries, jobs, lower prices, natural gas burns cleaner than coal and oil. Cons: Fracking has a significant impact on our environment - contamination of water, increase in earthquakes, air pollution, health risks such as respiratory problems, it can strain water supplies as fracking requires a large amount of water, it disrupts our natural habitat and ecosystem and wildlife and lastly but not leastly, it contributes to climate change due to its methane emissions - methane being an even more harmful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

just_sayin

Delilah6120 said:

@just_sayin

I think Harris is actually against fracking but knows that if she says that she will lose Pennsylvania, which she needs to win the election.

Not only is fracking important to the 100,000 jobs in Pennsylvania,  Each person who uses natural gas has savings ranging from $181 to $432 per person annually depending on the area. Other sources of energy cost much more, and make electric and gas prices higher.  Plus it raises the cost of anything that uses electricity and transportation  - which is every good and service.  

She either changed her opposition to fracking because a) since her initial stance, she has learned that while we have to ease into renewable energy, we cannot wean totally from other sources of energy abruptly or b) winning PA is important because saving democracy is crucial and these are unprecedented times due to the other presidential candidate being unfit and dangerous to our democracy.

Someone is going to get hurt no matter what change is implemented. Renewable energy is the energy of the future and we must wean ourselves from coal and fracking eventually. Fracking has pros and cons. Pros: fracking produces gas and oil making us less dependent on foreign countries, jobs, lower prices, natural gas burns cleaner than coal and oil. Cons: Fracking has a significant impact on our environment - contamination of water, increase in earthquakes, air pollution, health risks such as respiratory problems, it can strain water supplies as fracking requires a large amount of water, it disrupts our natural habitat and ecosystem and wildlife and lastly but not leastly, it contributes to climate change due to its methane emissions - methane being an even more harmful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Harris lied in her interview saying in a 2020 debate she said she was for fracking.  She did not.  She said Biden supported fracking.  She never expressed a positive view until she needed Pennsylvania.  

Fracking may add to CO2, but it does so in half the measure of coal, which is why it should be encouraged.  There are major problems with current renewable energies - 1) other than nuclear - they can't scale to the level needed to provide energy for the US, 2) They are more expensive.  This especially impacts the poor because energy and transportation costs get passed on to us.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@just_sayin ; Camelian Harris is a Progressive Political Whore who is destroying America's morality, economy, integrity, future....Harris is a Green New SCAM proponent and servant of the Devil...don't trust her.

just_sayin

Delilah6120 said:

@just_sayin

I think Harris is actually against fracking but knows that if she says that she will lose Pennsylvania, which she needs to win the election.

Not only is fracking important to the 100,000 jobs in Pennsylvania,  Each person who uses natural gas has savings ranging from $181 to $432 per person annually depending on the area. Other sources of energy cost much more, and make electric and gas prices higher.  Plus it raises the cost of anything that uses electricity and transportation  - which is every good and service.  

She either changed her opposition to fracking because a) since her initial stance, she has learned that while we have to ease into renewable energy, we cannot wean totally from other sources of energy abruptly or b) winning PA is important because saving democracy is crucial and these are unprecedented times due to the other presidential candidate being unfit and dangerous to our democracy.

Someone is going to get hurt no matter what change is implemented. Renewable energy is the energy of the future and we must wean ourselves from coal and fracking eventually. Fracking has pros and cons. Pros: fracking produces gas and oil making us less dependent on foreign countries, jobs, lower prices, natural gas burns cleaner than coal and oil. Cons: Fracking has a significant impact on our environment - contamination of water, increase in earthquakes, air pollution, health risks such as respiratory problems, it can strain water supplies as fracking requires a large amount of water, it disrupts our natural habitat and ecosystem and wildlife and lastly but not leastly, it contributes to climate change due to its methane emissions - methane being an even more harmful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Harris lied in her interview saying in a 2020 debate she said she was for fracking.  She did not.  She said Biden supported fracking.  She never expressed a positive view until she needed Pennsylvania.  

Fracking may add to CO2, but it does so in half the measure of coal, which is why it should be encouraged.  There are major problems with current renewable energies - 1) other than nuclear - they can't scale to the level needed to provide energy for the US, 2) They are more expensive.  This especially impacts the poor because energy and transportation costs get passed on to us.  

jack

Argument Topic: The United States has been an annual net total energy EXPORTER since 2019

just_sayin said:

Fracking may add to CO2, but it does so in half the measure of coal, which is why it should be encouraged. 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/imports-and-exports.php

Hello just_: 

Since we're a net EXPORTER of energy, and fracking is a major POLLUTER, seems like a good time to cut back.

No?

excon

just_sayin

jack said:

just_sayin said:

Fracking may add to CO2, but it does so in half the measure of coal, which is why it should be encouraged. 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/imports-and-exports.php

Hello just_: 

Since we're a net EXPORTER of energy, and fracking is a major POLLUTER, seems like a good time to cut back.

No?

excon

What will you use to power power plants?  Now, nuclear power will get the job done.  But leftists don't like it.  They lie and say it is unsafe.  Did you know, Jack, more people have been killed by solar panels, than all the nuclear power plant accidents in history (and that includes Chernobyl and Japan).  Please don't trust me and go look it up for yourself.  

Anyway, natural gas can power a power plant without substantially raising energy costs.  Not so with solar and wind.  The cost is in the grid which can't handle the constant variations and storage of massive amounts of energy.  So bottom line, what you are proposing will cost the lowest quintile of workers (the poor) about 25 percent of their take home pay (this was the finding of 5 different studies of Obama's energy plan).  

Do you know how much difference zero emissions world wide will make in global temperature increases?  This is the question that lefty's don't like answered.  From Heritage:

Green New Deal Wouldn’t Change Climate Significantly 
But here’s the key thing: Even if Americans were on board with this radical change in behavior and lifestyle, it wouldn’t change our climate.
In fact, the U.S. could cut its carbon dioxide emissions 100 percent and it would not make a difference in abating global warming.
Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling, the world would be only 0.137 degree Celsius cooler by 2100. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278 degree Celsius by the turn of the century. 

Tell me Jack, even for an extremist like you, is taking 25% of poor people's money away for them, worth .278 degree Celsius less increase (its still going to go up by 2-5 degrees by most estimates) over the next 100 years?  

Jack, renewable energy is good thing.  Moving to renewable energy makes sense, but as it becomes affordable and can size up to meet the demands of the US.  Spending quadrillions on a problem that will only make people poorer, and will only change in the increase in temperature by an imperceptible amount, just doesn't seem like a logical move to make.  

Factfinder

jack said:

just_sayin said:

Fracking may add to CO2, but it does so in half the measure of coal, which is why it should be encouraged. 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/imports-and-exports.php

Hello just_: 

Since we're a net EXPORTER of energy, and fracking is a major POLLUTER, seems like a good time to cut back.

No?

excon

Maybe we should export less and keep the price of energy lower here so people can use their heaters this winter? That would serve a dual purpose, cut down on fracking and it would be affordable as the Biden/Harris weaponizing of inflationary controls left 100s of millions with no heat for the winter which will be as usual, common news during democrat years and especially jurisdictions of leadership.

See Jack what a President can do now is reduce exports with the intention of raising the price to import our energy to their countries.  Thus guaranteeing a healthy supply at home with far less dependency on foreign investments. Imagine the progress we could have made if Biden/Harris didn't screw our energy companies and ALL the products fuel transports could have stayed low priced as when Trump was in? Instead of waiting on government bureaucratic red tape for grants and start up schemes outside of the proven success of established energy giants. And those companies could have made enough in profits to reinvest in American ingenuity and cleaner energy for the future instead of just maintaining old equipment if Bide/Harris hadn't buried leases allowing the drilling for oil under mountains of red tape, fees and taxes so they then can turn and blame big oil for not drilling publically; thus Biden/Harris purposely raising inflation. 

Don't you hate the idea most Americans will be aware of that fact on voting day Jack? 

Delilah6120

@just_sayin

Harris lied in her interview saying in a 2020 debate she said she was for fracking.  She did not.  She said Biden supported fracking.  She never expressed a positive view until she needed Pennsylvania.  

Fracking may add to CO2, but it does so in half the measure of coal, which is why it should be encouraged.  There are major problems with current renewable energies - 1) other than nuclear - they can't scale to the level needed to provide energy for the US, 2) They are more expensive.  This especially impacts the poor because energy and transportation costs get passed on to us.  

It was 2019 when Kamala stated she was in favor of banning fracking. She is a believer in global warming effects and the major contributors of global warming. When she joined Biden her position changed likely because Biden, with his age, wisdom and prudence, probably schooled her in the consequences of banning it completely and abruptly. He proposed limiting fracking and especially on federal lands. Whether she lied, exaggerated or told the truth is ridiculously being scrutinized. Let´s be fair, reasonable and realistic Just_sayin. Shall we compare her fracking infraction to all of Trump´s infractions? Surely you´re aware of his most recent indecency at Arlington Cemetery. Don´t get me started.

Of course natural gas is safer than oil but it still disrupts the environment and has health consequences. And while renewable energy does have its problems, I believe with every thread of my being, that Trump and right wing extremism is responsible for all this suspicion about green energy. With all new technology, there are numerous challenges from their conception. It requires patience, positivity, and the ability to adjust. Technology is advancing daily to mitigate problems that arise using solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, etc.. Aspiring to a sustainable energy system from fossil fuels is a major shift. It is complex. It requires patience, positivity, awareness of future generations, public acceptance and the ability to adapt to change. We got through the industrial revolution with significant shifts from agriculture to industrial energy powered by steam/fossil fuels. We made it through the Digital Revolution - shifting from analog to digital technology. How about the shift from horse to automobile? How ´bout the adoption of electricity in the late 1900s? How about the internet, automobile, personal computers? 

I hear an increasing amount of - and angry nay saying when renewable energy is discussed. Honestly, along with the most divisive figure in history and the extreme 24/7 news cycle, the negativity and gloom and doom being propagated is startling. Sweet Jesus, I cannot even imagine all the cynicism of said naysayers if they were around when the Wright brothers tested their first airplane. It only made it up 10 feet and flew for 12 seconds. They could have collectively halted the advancement of airplanes. Do some research to find out how advanced other industrialized countries are in the transition from fossil fuels. We´re not going back. Hop on the Hope train!

just_sayin

Delilah6120 said:

@just_sayin

Harris lied in her interview saying in a 2020 debate she said she was for fracking.  She did not.  She said Biden supported fracking.  She never expressed a positive view until she needed Pennsylvania.  

Fracking may add to CO2, but it does so in half the measure of coal, which is why it should be encouraged.  There are major problems with current renewable energies - 1) other than nuclear - they can't scale to the level needed to provide energy for the US, 2) They are more expensive.  This especially impacts the poor because energy and transportation costs get passed on to us.  

It was 2019 when Kamala stated she was in favor of banning fracking. She is a believer in global warming effects and the major contributors of global warming. When she joined Biden her position changed likely because Biden, with his age, wisdom and prudence, probably schooled her in the consequences of banning it completely and abruptly. He proposed limiting fracking and especially on federal lands. Whether she lied, exaggerated or told the truth is ridiculously being scrutinized. Let´s be fair, reasonable and realistic Just_sayin. Shall we compare her fracking infraction to all of Trump´s infractions? Surely you´re aware of his most recent indecency at Arlington Cemetery. Don´t get me started.

Of course natural gas is safer than oil but it still disrupts the environment and has health consequences. And while renewable energy does have its problems, I believe with every thread of my being, that Trump and right wing extremism is responsible for all this suspicion about green energy. With all new technology, there are numerous challenges from their conception. It requires patience, positivity, and the ability to adjust. Technology is advancing daily to mitigate problems that arise using solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, etc.. Aspiring to a sustainable energy system from fossil fuels is a major shift. It is complex. It requires patience, positivity, awareness of future generations, public acceptance and the ability to adapt to change. We got through the industrial revolution with significant shifts from agriculture to industrial energy powered by steam/fossil fuels. We made it through the Digital Revolution - shifting from analog to digital technology. How about the shift from horse to automobile? How ´bout the adoption of electricity in the late 1900s? How about the internet, automobile, personal computers? 

I hear an increasing amount of - and angry nay saying when renewable energy is discussed. Honestly, along with the most divisive figure in history and the extreme 24/7 news cycle, the negativity and gloom and doom being propagated is startling. Sweet Jesus, I cannot even imagine all the cynicism of said naysayers if they were around when the Wright brothers tested their first airplane. It only made it up 10 feet and flew for 12 seconds. They could have collectively halted the advancement of airplanes. Do some research to find out how advanced other industrialized countries are in the transition from fossil fuels. We´re not going back. Hop on the Hope train!

1) Harris never said in 2020 that her position changed.  She said what Biden believed about fracking.  What she said in her interview is therefore a lie.

2)  Regarding how essential natural gas is to our economy, from Google AI:

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the following are the projected percentages of energy sources in the US in 2024: 

• Renewable energy: 18% of electricity generation, which includes wind and solar 
• Coal: 17% of electricity generation 
• Natural gas: 37% of electricity generation 
• Nuclear power: 19% of electricity generation 

Wind, solar and hydro power together are less than half of natural gas.  Why do you think that is?  Its because there are problems with scaling the others and there are problems with how they impact the energy grid. 

Forcing poor people to buy EV cars which cost $20,000 more on average than a gas powered car is not practical.  The poor can't afford your energy sources.  Now, it seems to me that the real emphasis is making energy more affordable.  If you want someone to change willingly, make renewable energy cost less.  What the left forgot is how their policies effect the poor.  They would spend quadrillions of dollars with little or no discernible change in global temperatures while bankrupting the poor in this country.   Until the left is ready to discuss the costs and benefits of their policies seriously, we shouldn't take them seriously.

Bogan

@Delilah6120

Delilah It was 2019 when Kamala stated she was in favor of banning fracking. She is a believer in global warming effects and the major contributors of global warming. When she joined Biden her position changed likely because Biden, with his age, wisdom and prudence, probably schooled her in the consequences of banning it completely and abruptly.

 You have inadvertently admitted that Kamala Harris's original position was completely wrong. 

 

 Delilah quote  He proposed limiting fracking and especially on federal lands. Whether she lied, exaggerated or told the truth is ridiculously being scrutinized. Let´s be fair, reasonable and realistic Just_sayin. Shall we compare her fracking infraction to all of Trump´s infractions?

 The difference being, that people in the USA can compare their lives under President Trump to how things have gone downhill under Biden.    Kamala Harris can not gush on about how “Bidenomics” has been a smashing success when the lived experiences of almost all of the people in the USA knows that she is either telling lies, or she is an out-of-touch fool.   

 

  Delilah quote   Surely you´re aware of his most recent indecency at Arlington Cemetery

 All that proved is that the fake news press are good at putting a negative spin on anything.     Only somebody who’s minds have been infected by the woke mind virus took that rubbish seriously. 

 

Delilah       Of course natural gas is safer than oil but it still disrupts the environment and has health consequences.

 Oil is blood to an advanced society.  That fact just happens to be as immutable as the Law of Gravity.    No oil or coal, no prosperity.    I find it amazing how people like yourself have this deep psychological need to demonise the very products which have made your people wealthy.    I put it down to the fact that you have lived all of your life in the wealthiest time in human history and you have no conception that the wealth you take for granted can disappear very quickly, if you don’t think straight.    As for “health consequences”, people, especially in the working classes and up, are living longer than at any time in human history. 

 

Delilah quote        And while renewable energy does have its problems, I believe with every thread of my being, that Trump and right wing extremism is responsible for all this suspicion about green energy.

 The suspicion is growing among people who can think, that they have been had.      Anthropogenic climate change is just a Trojan Horse for sundry left wing causes, the most important of which is to frighten the public into accepting higher taxes. 

 

 Delilah quote   With all new technology, there are numerous challenges from their conception. It requires patience, positivity, and the ability to adjust. Technology is advancing daily to mitigate problems that arise using solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, etc.. Aspiring to a sustainable energy system from fossil fuels is a major shift. It is complex. It requires patience, positivity, awareness of future generations, public acceptance and the ability to adapt to change.

 For decades, the climate sceptics have pointed out to anybody who would listen, that this rush to Green energy was too expensive, and would result in the Law of Unintended consequences.     We are seeing this today.   Insurance companies are refusing to insure electric cars.   Building managers are refusing to allow electric cars to park inside of buildings.    Second hand electric cars are unsaleable.    Even if there were enough chargers for electric cars, the grid can not handle the load.     The most obvious example of this was the situation which happened in California where so many power stations were closed by its rabid Leftist government that the Governor ordered owners of electric cars to not charge their vehicles overnight, at home. 

 

 Delilah quote  We got through the industrial revolution with significant shifts from agriculture to industrial energy powered by steam/fossil fuels. We made it through the Digital Revolution - shifting from analog to digital technology. How about the shift from horse to automobile? How ´bout the adoption of electricity in the late 1900s? How about the internet, automobile, personal computers? 

 The Industrial revolution came about not because Governments created the Industrial revolution.   It came about because in a democracy, people are free to invent new ideas and investors are always looking for ways to make ideas profitable.       But green policy was invented by an obscure and poorly funded branch of science, and it was promoted by leftist governments as a means of social control.     It’s primary aim is not to increase productivity, just the opposite.   It’s main aim is to be a Trojan Horse used by the powerful and monied elites to keep themselves at the top, and the plebs like you and me at the bottom.      They sell this self promoting idea using standard advertising techniques.   Market it as a cause for the "world saver", "social progressive" class to adopt, and make them think that only "intelligent" and "morally correct' people can see it as the way to Save the World.   The Green energy oligarchs and their bought Democrat public service upper elites then laugh all the way to the bank.  

 

Delilah quote        I hear an increasing amount of - and angry nay saying when renewable energy is discussed. Honestly, along with the most divisive figure in history and the extreme 24/7 news cycle, the negativity and gloom and doom being propagated is startling. Sweet Jesus, I cannot even imagine all the cynicism of said naysayers if they were around when the Wright brothers tested their first airplane. It only made it up 10 feet and flew for 12 seconds. They could have collectively halted the advancement of airplanes. Do some research to find out how advanced other industrialized countries are in the transition from fossil fuels. We´re not going back. Hop on the Hope train!

 Correcting your metaphor.      How about a different analogy?     Say, the Wright Brothers invented a flying machine and then a leftist governments demanded that everybody should sell their horses and carts and fly everywhere.      Then they put an onerous tax on horses and carts.     They invented all sorts of environmental controls on horses and carts, that it not only made it almost impossible for horse and cart manufactures and farmers to build carts and breed horses, that it stopped the production of horses and carts?  They did not worry about aircraft reliability, safety issues or that there were not enough airfields.      Then, when the entirely predicted and clearly foreseeable economic consequences to making it difficult for people to go about their lives and work, the government then crowed that the roads of the USA would be “horse free” by 1930?   

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;In 2020 Harris said she would end fracking on day one of her administration.

I really don't think it is necessary for her to abstain like a Nun but that's her business anyway.

Delilah6120

@Bogan

Delilah It was 2019 when Kamala stated she was in favor of banning fracking. She is a believer in global warming effects and the major contributors of global warming. When she joined Biden her position changed likely because Biden, with his age, wisdom and prudence, probably schooled her in the consequences of banning it completely and abruptly.

You have inadvertently admitted that Kamala Harris's original position was completely wrong. 

How so? I said her position may have changed with Biden´s offering of knowledge she may not have had.

 

Delilah quote  He proposed limiting fracking and especially on federal lands. Whether she lied, exaggerated or told the truth is ridiculously being scrutinized. Let´s be fair, reasonable and realistic Just_sayin. Shall we compare her fracking infraction to all of Trump´s infractions?

The difference being, that people in the USA can compare their lives under President Trump to how things have gone downhill under Biden.    Kamala Harris can not gush on about how “Bidenomics” has been a smashing success when the lived experiences of almost all of the people in the USA knows that she is either telling lies, or she is an out-of-touch fool.   

Some Americans believe they were better off because they fail to consider the effects Covid had on our economy and still believe that POTUS is the arbiter of gas and grocery prices. Silly.

 

Delilah quote   Surely you´re aware of his most recent indecency at Arlington Cemetery

All that proved is that the fake news press are good at putting a negative spin on anything.     Only somebody who’s minds have been infected by the woke mind virus took that rubbish seriously. 

And all your statement proves is that the words ¨fake news¨ have succeeded in their purpose - trust nothing but Trump. Stop with the Fake News.
There was no spin. Silly words - woke mind virus? Get on the reality train Bogan. The flimflam side is losing.

 

Delilah       Of course natural gas is safer than oil but it still disrupts the environment and has health consequences.

Oil is blood to an advanced society.  That fact just happens to be as immutable as the Law of Gravity.    No oil or coal, no prosperity.    I find it amazing how people like yourself have this deep psychological need to demonise the very products which have made your people wealthy.    I put it down to the fact that you have lived all of your life in the wealthiest time in human history and you have no conception that the wealth you take for granted can disappear very quickly, if you don’t think straight.    As for “health consequences”, people, especially in the working classes and up, are living longer than at any time in human history.

Your outlook is grim and you assume we Americans should all be enthralled with money and wealth while disregarding humanity.  This may come as a surprise to you, but there are good and thoughtful Americans who care about our future generations and not just me, me, me. Nope, not demonizing products, just realizing those products have lost their initial success and have become a liability. Technological advances are good to embrace for the future generations. We´re not going back.

Delilah quote        And while renewable energy does have its problems, I believe with every thread of my being, that Trump and right wing extremism is responsible for all this suspicion about green energy.

The suspicion is growing among people who can think, that they have been had.      Anthropogenic climate change is just a Trojan Horse for sundry left wing causes, the most important of which is to frighten the public into accepting higher taxes. 

I´m not convinced as you are still regurgitating Trump´s favorite ¨Fake News¨. Who has really been had are people who believe fossil fuel energy is benign and the only energy we can rely on. Aside from its proven problems a) air pollution, water pollution, land degradation b) respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, exposure to hazardous chemicals c) the depletion of fossil fuels - increase in energy dependence d) extreme climate change - an increase in climate disasters and severity of disasters = $$ spent to clean up after every disaster and last but not least, Dark Money (campaign contributions) coming from the fossil fuel industry and going to the Republican party. But hey continue being loyal to republicans who get a large portion of their election contributions from the fossil fuel sector - in quid pro quo fashion. Republicans keep advocating for dirty fossil fuel companies and the energy sector will continue to contribute to reelection campaigns. Much like the NRA. You would think critical thinkers could understand that Republicans fighting FOR fossil fuels and AGAINST green energy are doing it for their own benefit and disregarding the good of the country.

Delilah quote   With all new technology, there are numerous challenges from their conception. It requires patience, positivity, and the ability to adjust. Technology is advancing daily to mitigate problems that arise using solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, etc.. Aspiring to a sustainable energy system from fossil fuels is a major shift. It is complex. It requires patience, positivity, awareness of future generations, public acceptance and the ability to adapt to change.

For decades, the climate sceptics have pointed out to anybody who would listen, that this rush to Green energy was too expensive, and would result in the Law of Unintended consequences.     We are seeing this today.   Insurance companies are refusing to insure electric cars.   Building managers are refusing to allow electric cars to park inside of buildings.    Second hand electric cars are unsaleable.    Even if there were enough chargers for electric cars, the grid can not handle the load.     The most obvious example of this was the situation which happened in California where so many power stations were closed by its rabid Leftist government that the Governor ordered owners of electric cars to not charge their vehicles overnight, at home. 

And before those decades, were scientists warning us of a potential climate crisis. The climate skeptics are those entangled in the profits and corruptions of the fossil fuel industry.

Most insurance companies insure electric cars. True that some parts are exorbitant in price to replace but this also is being mitigated as the technology continues to evolve. With every new invention, there are glitches to be worked out. I see Teslas so frequently now and also charging stations. The technology is evolving and growing. Solar panels are up; Wind turbines are spinning. Garages with solar panels as rooftops are being built. Recyclable battery plants are being built. Recyclng plants for solar panels, wind turbines are being built. Yes there are problems to fix. No one disputes that. With every new technology, there are enormous growing pains. 

 

Delilah quote  We got through the industrial revolution with significant shifts from agriculture to industrial energy powered by steam/fossil fuels. We made it through the Digital Revolution - shifting from analog to digital technology. How about the shift from horse to automobile? How ´bout the adoption of electricity in the late 1900s? How about the internet, automobile, personal computers? 

 The Industrial revolution came about not because Governments created the Industrial revolution.   It came about because in a democracy, people are free to invent new ideas and investors are always looking for ways to make ideas profitable.  But green policy was invented by an obscure and poorly funded branch of science, and it was promoted by leftist governments as a means of social control.     It’s primary aim is not to increase productivity, just the opposite.   It’s main aim is to be a Trojan Horse used by the powerful and monied elites to keep themselves at the top, and the plebs like you and me at the bottom.      They sell this self promoting idea using standard advertising techniques.   Market it as a cause for the "world saver", "social progressive" class to adopt, and make them think that only "intelligent" and "morally correct' people can see it as the way to Save the World.   The Green energy oligarchs and their bought Democrat public service upper elites then laugh all the way to the bank.  

Interested in your ¨poorly funded branch of science¨ assertion?  Can you post more information on this? Why not look into the profits made by Exxon, Chevron and other energy companies before, during and after Covid and then tell me about powerful and monied elites. Why not look into the campaign contributions made by fossil fuel industries? You think there are no Fossil Fuel Oligarchs? 

 

Delilah quote        I hear an increasing amount of - and angry nay saying when renewable energy is discussed. Honestly, along with the most divisive figure in history and the extreme 24/7 news cycle, the negativity and gloom and doom being propagated is startling. Sweet Jesus, I cannot even imagine all the cynicism of said naysayers if they were around when the Wright brothers tested their first airplane. It only made it up 10 feet and flew for 12 seconds. They could have collectively halted the advancement of airplanes. Do some research to find out how advanced other industrialized countries are in the transition from fossil fuels. We´re not going back. Hop on the Hope train!

Correcting your metaphor.      How about a different analogy?     Say, the Wright Brothers invented a flying machine and then a leftist governments demanded that everybody should sell their horses and carts and fly everywhere.      Then they put an onerous tax on horses and carts.     They invented all sorts of environmental controls on horses and carts, that it not only made it almost impossible for horse and cart manufactures and farmers to build carts and breed horses, that it stopped the production of horses and carts?  They did not worry about aircraft reliability, safety issues or that there were not enough airfields.      Then, when the entirely predicted and clearly foreseeable economic consequences to making it difficult for people to go about their lives and work, the government then crowed that the roads of the USA would be “horse free” by 1930?  

Your metaphor suggests that while green energy is being advanced, no consideration is being made for the gradual weaning from the fossil fuel industry. The Biden administration has taken measures to mitigate the effects of transitioning from the fossil fuel industry to green energy including supporting programs to retrain workers displaced by the transition, providing funding and apprenticeships, the development of programs that support those communities affected by the transition including funding for community revitalization projects and other initiatives that support local economies, conversations with stakeholders - industry leaders, environmental organizations and local governments to ensure the transition is as equitable a shift as possible. These initiatives along with numerous initiatives to ensure renewable energy is equitable for all are being implemented.

Bogan - hop on the hope train. Don´t fall for all the negativity, the gloom and doom, and Trumps favorite ¨our country is going to hell¨.
The future holds much hope.

MayCaesar

@Delilah6120

You are making so many mistakes, yet sound so incredibly confident. How much of the subject matter have you actually studied?

First, it is not "negativity" to state that the technology is not as advanced as you believe it is. Saying that in a few years "renewable" energy will be able to replace oil and natural gas fully given where we are is, indeed, like saying that the use will be horse-free in a few years - in 1890, a few years after the first car was built. If your claim was that "renewable" energy could become the dominant form of energy by 2150, that would be a different story.

Second, even that runs into something that politicians do not like to deal with: realities of the Universe. Politically-minded people think that the way to achieve a desired result is to keep talking about its importance, be an "activist" - but the actual way to achieve the desired result is to take hard actions that get you there, and in this case no actions will do. Solar energy, wind energy and the like come in very low density, too low to use it directly to power most of our machines - hence the energy has to be accumulated, stored and released in bursts. Which defeats the whole purpose, you see... But even that aside, the total amount of solar energy the Earth receives daily is 10,000 times the world energy use. This means that to serve all of our needs, we would need to convert 0.05% of the Earth's surface into solar plants (given the typical efficiency of solar panels of 20%). Since we can only use land really - building solar panels out in the option is a ridiculous proposition - that goes up to around 0.2%. We are talking 400,000 square miles of pure solar panels. Add more than this for service buildings, barrier from civilization (solar plants have to be well distanced for a variety of reasons)... It gets closer to 1 million square miles of solar panels.

This seems like a very inefficient way to go about harvesting enough energy. Given that solar panels produce a lot of chemical waste, we are also looking at a pretty bad pollution, far worse than anything we have ever dealt with. This just illustrates how poor solar energy is in principle, not just with the modern technology in mind. It is even worse for wind.

Third, humanity has always progressed by harnessing existing technology so new technology can be developed faster. The best way to achieve the cleanest environment in human history is to use as much oil and gas right now as we can, using the energy for pushing the technology forward. In many ways it is already happening: city downtowns today are virtually free of pollution compared to 50 years ago, the green coverage of Earth has increased by something crazy like 30% over the past 40... At this rate we will live in a green paradise within several decades, especially if China, Russia and India keep growing technologically and also adopting all these amazing green technologies.

Do you know what is negative? This talk so common nowadays about how humans are harming the planet and retribution is in order. The Earth has never been as awesome to live for a human being as today. There is no apocalypse coming. There could be, however, if crazy ideologies like socialism eventually take over. I doubt they will, but they can take over locally, so while the rest of the world keeps moving forward, places like North Korea or Cuba are stuck in medieval times. Some people in the US think that America should also head in that direction... No, I do not think so, lady.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;In 2020 Harris said she would end fracking on day one of her administration.

I really don't think it is necessary for her to abstain like a Nun but that's her business anyway.

Bernie, its obvious that our resident chicken man has clucking on the brain today.  I hope @Delilah6120 gets that even an unscrupulous chicken outfit would gladly switch to renewable energy if it lowered its costs.  Her gustapo forces would not be needed and the poor would be less poor.  

Bogan

@Delilah6120

Delilah quote  How so? I said her position may have changed with Biden´s offering of knowledge she may not have had.

 Elementary, my dear Delilah.    If she changed her position for any reason, then her original position was obviously wrong. 

 

   Delilah quote  Some Americans believe they were better off because they fail to consider the effects Covid had on our economy and still believe that POTUS is the arbiter of gas and grocery prices. Silly.

 It s not silly to understand that if energy costs, which include petrol, diesel, and electricity prices increase, then that will cause the prices of everything to rise, which will fuel inflation.     It was the Biden administration policies which caused all of those factors to rise.      Harris is now a convert to fracking because her puppeteers know that the only hope for her to win the election is if she can out do President Trump in “Drill baby, drill!”     

 

 Delilah quote   And all your statement proves is that the words ¨fake news¨ have succeeded in their purpose - trust nothing but Trump. Stop with the Fake News.      There was no spin. Silly words - woke mind virus? Get on the reality train Bogan. The flimflam side is losing.

 Then why is trust in the mainstream US media at an all time low?     And why is the “right wing” media’s ratings soaring?    Obviously, the public is increasingly seeing the fake news press as just left wing propaganda while the right wing press is seen as much more trustworthy.       How is it that once very respected news media like CNN is now headed for bankruptcy?     Since you fear to answer that I will do it for you.     Most Americans are fed up of the lies, omissions, and spin of the fake news press.      That CNN reporter standing in front of a burning city and saying that the BLM protests were “mostly peaceful” will go down in journalism history as one of the lowest points in the history of journalism.   That video clip will be used for decades to come as an example in journalism schools to teach aspiring journalists what not to do, if they wish to retain their credibility.    

  

  Delilah quote  Your outlook is grim and you assume we Americans should all be enthralled with money and wealth while disregarding humanity.  This may come as a surprise to you, but there are good and thoughtful Americans who care about our future generations and not just me, me, me. Nope, not demonizing products, just realizing those products have lost their initial success and have become a liability. Technological advances are good to embrace for the future generations. We´re not going back.

 By “good and thoughtful Americans” you mean people like yourself and your peer group of university educated social progressives.   Your opinions are elitist and take no account of what ordinary Americans want, or believe in, which is why you have not only lost the working class, but the lower middle class and a chunk of the “disadvantaged” class as well.   Your elitist views are detrimental to the continued welfare of the majority of Americans, and that is why you will lose the next election.     The corrupt upper class monied elite know that, and that is why they will do anything to even prevent American voters from voting for President Trump.   We have seen all sorts of underhanded tactics used that have never previously been seen in US electoral history to prevent a popular candidate from running for office.   As an American, that should concern you. 

 If you and your educated elitist friends think that you are special and are the saviours of the world, while your people get ever poorer and you’re your country continues to sink into socialist inspired bankruptcy, then don’t be surprised when the people you despise and turned your backs on, return the complement and vote for Donald Trump.   

 

 Delilah quote        And while renewable energy does have its problems, I believe with every thread of my being, that Trump and right wing extremism is responsible for all this suspicion about green energy.

Wrong again.     It is those very states which are the wokest and which embrace green energy which are going down the gurgler, while right wing states that are pro Trump are doing quite well.      That comparison is stark, and any informed American can see it. 

 

 Delilah quote  I´m not convinced as you are still regurgitating Trump´s favorite ¨Fake News¨.

 For decades now, the climate alarmists had it all their own way in the fake news mainstream press.    Reporters hung on every word the alarmists said, while sceptics were either completely ignored or presented by the fake news media as kooks.    But in the last five years or so everything has changed.      The oft predicted end of the world never occurred.     Alarmists can’t keep banging on that the world will end by the year 2000, 2005, 2010, 2014, or whatever, and then hope that the public does not notice when their stu-pid predictions never come true.    If somebody claims to be an expert in a particular field, and then makes predictions based upon their supposed “expert” knowledge which never eventuates, then any impartial observer would opine that they do not have a clue what they are talking about.   

 

Delilah quote       Who has really been had are people who believe fossil fuel energy is benign and the only energy we can rely on.

 For the foreseeable future, that would be a reasonable assumption.     The premature push for Green energy and woke immigration policies has seen western economies in a state of near collapse, and inflation, and interest rates surging, because of ever rising costs associated with green energy.     This situation was entirely foreseeable and predictable, yet your woke elitist crowd considered it more important to supposedly “save the planet” than to concentrate on the welfare of your own people, especially the poor.  

 

 Delilah quote   Aside from its proven problems a) air pollution, water pollution, land degradation b) respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, exposure to hazardous chemicals c) the depletion of fossil fuels - increase in energy dependence d) extreme climate change - an increase in climate disasters and severity of disasters = $$ spent to clean up after every disaster and last but not least, Dark Money (campaign contributions) coming from the fossil fuel industry and going to the Republican party.

 Increasingly, Green energy is coming with a lot of problems too.   So much so, that most people want nothing to do with electric cars.     In Australia, virtue signaling upper caste elites all drive their Teslas, which is parked in their two or three door gages alongside their Range Rovers which they use to visit their coastal holiday homes and their trips to the ski fields.      Since this does not suit the elites, then we are seeing increasingly oppressive laws being enacted by Leftist governments to try and make people buy the cars they do not want to buy.      The more oppressive left wing governments become towards their lower classes, the more the lower classes will ignore their usual demographic voting patterns and vote for candidates who have their welfare uppermost.

 

Delilah quote       Butt hey continue being loyal to republicans who get a large portion of their election contributions from the fossil fuel sector - in quid pro quo fashion.

 While the green energy oligarchs financially support the Democrats, who they know will keep subsidising with public money their totally inefficient and expensive energy supplies.     This is an object lesson in how and why socialist countries always go broke.     People like yourself despise the oil industry because it is profitable and it can stand on it’s own.     You prefer an industry which can not survive without massive government handouts.     Those handouts go to the monied elite who bankroll corrupt politicians like Biden.    That is socialism in a nutshell.    It is how Rusia works, or in the case of their armed forces, does not work. 

 

Delilah quote   Republicans keep advocating for dirty fossil fuel companies and the energy sector will continue to contribute to reelection campaigns. Much like the NRA. You would think critical thinkers could understand that Republicans fighting FOR fossil fuels and AGAINST green energy are doing it for their own benefit and disregarding the good of the country.

 It is the for the electorate to decide what is good for the country.     So, free speech essential so that the electorate can decide for themselves where their personal self interest and where their need to sublimate their personal self interest for the good of the wider community comes into play.      But increasingly we are seeing political censorship being used to hide the inconvenient facts from the public.    That once used to be the preserve of the Right establishment.    But with the ascendency of the Left establishment, it is now the Left who wants to shut down free speech.    If you really do consider yourself to be a far seeing social progressive, then that should concern you.

 

 Delilah quote  And before those decades, were scientists warning us of a potential climate crisis. The climate skeptics are those entangled in the profits and corruptions of the fossil fuel industry.

 The same works both ways.   

 

Delilah quote  Most insurance companies insure electric cars. True that some parts are exorbitant in price to replace but this also is being mitigated as the technology continues to evolve.

 Then “evolve” your technology before you inflict it on a public who not only do not want it, consider it to be far too expensive, and who can see that it is detrimental to their economy.        You have to convince them that your position is correct.    But you cannot do that, because your ideology is too full of holes, so you have to the opposition.    Here in Australia, one prominent climate change advocate demanded that the Australian government “call out the army” to force the public to accept whatever measures the green fanatics proposed.    Another reminisced how the CCP did not have to worry about public support  in order to enact legislation which the du-mb Chinese public did not know what was good for them.      The elitist mindset is fundamentally totalitarian.     Like all previous totalitarian systems, it basic ideology posits that ordinary people are too du-mb to know what is good for them, so the elites have to force them to do it.      That would be okay if the elites ever created a totalitarian system that worked.      But history shows it rarely worked, and those which did were right wing totalitarians.   

 

Delilah quote   With every new invention, there are glitches to be worked out. I see Teslas so frequently now and also charging stations. The technology is evolving and growing. Solar panels are up; Wind turbines are spinning. Garages with solar panels as rooftops are being built. Recyclable battery plants are being built. Recyclng plants for solar panels, wind turbines are being built. Yes there are problems to fix. No one disputes that. With every new technology, there are enormous growing pains. 

 I myself, shocked at how my electricity prices kept rising to astronomical levels, blew eight thousand dollars to get solar panels on my roof to reduce my exorbitant electricity bills.     Surprise, surprise, after 12 months, the government found all sorts of reasons to increase the price of electricity again to account for the fact that less people needed power from their overly expensive grid.      Now, my electricity bill is almost as high as before I spent 8 grand I could not afford to spend.    Such behaviour from Leftist governments incenses the ordinary people that you and your elitist peer group despises.    And you wonder why woke Leftism is on the nose with the lower classes? 

 

Delilah quote     Interested in your ¨poorly funded branch of science¨ assertion?  Can you post more information on this?

 Prior to the climate change hoax, climate science was never seen as important as scientific disciplines such as mathematics, chemistry, geology, engineering, biochemistry, or physics.   All of these sciences had applications to industry and mining and so were seen as important for growing an economy.   As such, graduates from these disciplines were hired by the research departments of private industries.     Climate science and meteorology were the poor cousins because nobody hired them except the government.    And if there is one thing government departments are good at it is empire building, and dreaming up scenarios which will get them getting increased public funding for their departments.     The climate change hoax succeeded beyond their wildest expectations and other researchers found that their own obscure research could be funded by governments, just by adding a climate change angle to it.   So, some marine biologist living it up on a publicly excluded island on the Great Barrier Reef, (alongside some pretty female undergraduates in bikinis) could get a grant for "Analysis of the Change in the Sex Life of the Beaked Parrotfish due to Climate change", that he would neve get without mentioning climate change.           

 

  Delilah quote  Why not look into the profits made by Exxon, Chevron and other energy companies before, during and after Covid and then tell me about powerful and monied elites. Why not look into the campaign contributions made by fossil fuel industries? You think there are no Fossil Fuel Oligarchs? 

 I am already aware of the fossil fuel oligarchs, but all your woke policies are doing is creating another group of oligarchs, this time an oligarchy subsidised by the taxpayers. 

 

Delilah quote  Your metaphor suggests that while green energy is being advanced, no consideration is being made for the gradual weaning from the fossil fuel industry.

 There is nothing wrong with either of those concepts, provided that they are not being pushed to suit an ideological agenda which is based upon a falsehood, and which is destroying western economies in order to tip at windmills.      In order for your green agenda to succeed, you have to convince the public that it is real.      Initially, that was very easy to do by using the power of the media to control people’s minds.     But increasingly it is getting much harder to do because ordinary people can see for themselves that it just appears to be another way for governments to get their greedy hands inside of their wallets and purses.        And this woke concept of climate change is now being linked to other failed woke policies such immigration, BLM, DEI, transgenderism, and economic irresponsibility.    

 

Delilah quote     The Biden administration has taken measures to mitigate the effects of transitioning from the fossil fuel industry to green energy including supporting programs to retrain workers displaced by the transition, providing funding and apprenticeships, the development of programs that support those communities affected by the transition including funding for community revitalization projects and other initiatives that support local economies, conversations with stakeholders - industry leaders, environmental organizations and local governments to ensure the transition is as equitable a shift as possible. These initiatives along with numerous initiatives to ensure renewable energy is equitable for all are being implemented.

 The difference being, that less than four years ago President Trump had the US economy humming along, despite all of the obstacles put in his way by a hostile senate.   In less than four years, the Democrats who hold your views have managed to bugger everything up.     People can see this, which is why you are going to lose the next Presidential election, unless your elitist mates can dream up more creative charges to put their main political opponent in jail.

   

 Delilah quote  Bogan - hop on the hope train. Don´t fall for all the negativity, the gloom and doom, and Trumps favorite ¨our country is going to hell¨.The future holds much hope.

 Delilah, get on the reality train and stop believing that you and your fellow social progressives are the saviours of the world.     You are identifying with an elitist class and an elitist political system which managed to get nearly everything wrong since the Russian Revolution in 1917. 

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;Bernie, its obvious that our resident chicken man has clucking on the brain today. I hope @Delilah6120 gets that even an unscrupulous chicken outfit would gladly switch to renewable energy if it lowered its costs.  Her gustapo forces would not be needed and the poor would be less poor.  

Okay then, why don't you explain what chickens have to do with the sexual habits of our possible next President?

They don't do they, unless you are getting perverted way beyond your usual way of perverted thinking. So yet again it is just another diversion tactic.

My opinion is that if she is into fracking or not, that's her business but give the poor woman a chance.

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

You are making so many mistakes, yet sound so incredibly confident. How much of the subject matter have you actually studied?

I am confident we are going in the right direction with our energy needs. 

First, it is not "negativity" to state that the technology is not as advanced as you believe it is. Saying that in a few years "renewable" energy will be able to replace oil and natural gas fully given where we are is, indeed, like saying that the use will be horse-free in a few years - in 1890, a few years after the first car was built. If your claim was that "renewable" energy could become the dominant form of energy by 2150, that would be a different story.

The negativity I speak of is not that the many nay sayers don´t believe the technology is as advanced as it could be. They have not even reached that state yet. The negativity I speak of is the automatic doom and gloom responses to this new technology and the lack of insight into its development and benefits. Who said in a few years renewable energy will replace oil and natural gas? If anything, I´ve stated the opposite. New technologies take time, patience, public awareness, public acceptance, and are subject to many failures and setbacks before we get it right.

Second, even that runs into something that politicians do not like to deal with: realities of the Universe. Politically-minded people think that the way to achieve a desired result is to keep talking about its importance, be an "activist" - but the actual way to achieve the desired result is to take hard actions that get you there, and in this case no actions will do. Solar energy, wind energy and the like come in very low density, too low to use it directly to power most of our machines - hence the energy has to be accumulated, stored and released in bursts. Which defeats the whole purpose, you see... But even that aside, the total amount of solar energy the Earth receives daily is 10,000 times the world energy use. This means that to serve all of our needs, we would need to convert 0.05% of the Earth's surface into solar plants (given the typical efficiency of solar panels of 20%). Since we can only use land really - building solar panels out in the option is a ridiculous proposition - that goes up to around 0.2%. We are talking 400,000 square miles of pure solar panels. Add more than this for service buildings, barrier from civilization (solar plants have to be well distanced for a variety of reasons)... It gets closer to 1 million square miles of solar panels.

This seems like a very inefficient way to go about harvesting enough energy. Given that solar panels produce a lot of chemical waste, we are also looking at a pretty bad pollution, far worse than anything we have ever dealt with. This just illustrates how poor solar energy is in principle, not just with the modern technology in mind. It is even worse for wind.

True that solar and wind require large areas to capture energy because of their low energy density - and energy storage is a challenge - but it is not impossible nor improbable as the US and other countries like Germany, Denmark and others are using technologies like batteries, hydro storage and other methods - these methods are currently being developed and used to store energy for later use and also key to integrating this energy into the grid.  And it´s true that solar panels, wind turbines require space but it is not true that only more land would suffice their installation. Also, your assertion that 400K square miles is too much is subjective. Solar panels are installed on rooftops, in deserts and other lands that are just not suitable for farming or agriculture like deserts, mountains, wetlands, etc. Reading about this seems very efficient to me and surely you must have enough faith in science to believe that the experts actually know what they are doing? I think your statement that solar panels produce ¨a lot¨ of chemical waste is exaggerated - yes, they produce some chemical waste and importantly, the industry is making progress on reducing waste and recycling materials. Also the impact is much lower than that of fossil fuels. Let´s not forget why we are moving away from fossil fuels -- harmful chemicals, greenhouse emissions and long-term pollution.

Where does all this suspicion, cynicism and doubt come from? They seemingly think they know more than the experts - just a curiosity to me.

Third, humanity has always progressed by harnessing existing technology so new technology can be developed faster. The best way to achieve the cleanest environment in human history is to use as much oil and gas right now as we can, using the energy for pushing the technology forward. In many ways it is already happening: city downtowns today are virtually free of pollution compared to 50 years ago, the green coverage of Earth has increased by something crazy like 30% over the past 40... At this rate we will live in a green paradise within several decades, especially if China, Russia and India keep growing technologically and also adopting all these amazing green technologies.

I´m betting your assertion that the cleanest environment in human history is to use oil and gas now as we can to push new technology forward will bring you lots of blow back May. Continuing to use a proven, harmful energy supply to advance clean energy technology would be like using a leaky bucket to fill a pool. While some progress may be happening, it does not negate the harmful consequences that are still the problem - and will continue to add to the problem as you try to mitigate it.

Yes because of stricter regulations, cleaner technologies, improved infrastructure, urban areas have made progress in reducing pollution. And I did look this up about the green coverage of Earth increasing by 30% but it is due to reforestation efforts and changes in land use. It still does not address the need for reducing greenhouse gases. Besides that, who says we are getting rid of fossil fuels that quickly? The Biden Administration and the Renewable Energy Sector is not prepared to do that. They recognize that a complete transition from fossil fuels is still full of challenges and that we are not yet fully capable of completely replacing fossil fuels. This is what I am trying to get through to ya´ll.  The negativity, cynicism, and inability to adapt to necessary change is astounding.

Do you know what is negative? This talk so common nowadays about how humans are harming the planet and retribution is in order. The Earth has never been as awesome to live for a human being as today. There is no apocalypse coming. There could be, however, if crazy ideologies like socialism eventually take over. I doubt they will, but they can take over locally, so while the rest of the world keeps moving forward, places like North Korea or Cuba are stuck in medieval times. Some people in the US think that America should also head in that direction... No, I do not think so, lady.

I´m not aware of this talk of retribution to humans who are harming the planet? Retribution? Would love to hear more about that. Is that analogous to how humans are being made to feel guilty by way of CRT? I agree the Earth is beautiful and awesome. I also believe with every thread of my being that its current occupants are responsible for keeping it clean for future generations. 

No apocalypse coming. I agree May! Thatś why I continue to dispute the cynicism, negativity and doomsday rhetoric I´m hearing lately. Said rhetoric, I believe, can be associated with Trump and extremism. All the half-truths, complete lies, and ignorant statements made with no explanation. The total that Trump and extremism pump out to their supporters who have been manipulated into believing only him not ¨Fake News¨ or ¨Leugenpresse¨ as Hitler called it. For every one of these statements there is a rebuttal but Trump holds the power as he has completely manipulated his supporters with not only his Fake News phrase but his ¨tell a lie often enough and the people will believe it¨ stance.

¨The wind is killing all the birds. The windmills are ruining the landscape. And they´re very, very expensive¨
¨Solar is a disaster. It´s not cost-effective. It´s unreliable and just doesn´t work the way they say it does.¨

¨Green energy jobs are not real jobs. They´re just a way to get taxpayer money and create make-work positions.¨

¨The whole climate change thing is a scam. They´re using it to push their green energy agenda, which is a disaster.¨

¨We´re not going to let the Democrats destroy our energy industry with their green energy fantasies. It´s bad for jobs, bad for the economy, and bad for America.¨
"Wind is very expensive. It’s a terrible thing. It’s a big waste of money. It’s a disaster."
"Wind and solar are very inefficient and don’t create jobs. They’re just a very expensive way to generate electricity."
"Solar and wind energy are unreliable and can't provide the consistent power needed for the grid."
"Wind turbines are killing all the birds and causing pollution."
"Solar panels are made in China and they are terrible for the environment." 
¨We don’t need windmills. We have more energy than we need." 
 "Solar is not efficient and doesn’t work well in cloudy or cold climates."
"Renewable energy is heavily subsidized by the government, and it’s just a waste of taxpayer money."
"Green energy will cost us billions of dollars and destroy the economy."
"Electric cars are impractical, expensive, and won’t replace gasoline-powered vehicles."

And my favorite, uplifting, and inspiring quote from a previous president for all Americans to aspire to:

¨AMERICA IS GOING TO HELL¨ 

Sweet Jesus. I´d be angry all the time too if I listened to that.

Renewable energy is here to stay. All developed countries are on board with it and are developing new technologies to advance this clean energy initiative. 

¨WE´RE NOT GOING BACK.¨ - K. Harris

Yes, the rest of the industrialized world is moving forward with green energy including America. 

Only the Oligarchs believe we should stick with the fossil fuel industry because that´s where the $ is, that´s where it´s always been, and that $ is what funds the new republican party.

What is this socialism you talk about May?
No, I do not think so, man.

MayCaesar

@Delilah6120

New technology is cool, but it is not magic. You have to live in reality where technology does not advance instantly, where there are all kinds of cross-dependencies between old and new technology, where a lot of promising research will end in wasted billions and a dead end. Cautioning against reckless investment is practicality, not negativity. Being a 6 year old full of cool theories and no restraint is not the way forward.

My PhD is in physics, and I happen to be very well familiar with particularly the solar energy industry. Had a job offer from a solar panel manufacturer - that has committed to achieving internal net zero emissions by 2050... You can see that even the people developing this technology themselves - and having 100% control over its deployment locally and not having particularly energy-demanding machinery - do not believe that they can replace traditional sources of energy with that on a tiny scale within 2.5 decades. Now take some construction company building skyscrapers in NYC and try to pitch them the same.

The scientists you are referencing are not on board with your ideas. Are they negative too?

The point is that all this harmful energy allows humanity to develop less harmful technology. It is like taking a university loan and taking a temporary financial hit so that 10 years later you are in a better financial spot than you would otherwise have been. The way to clean the environment is to use all the resources we have at our disposal.

The further back you look, the worse environmental conditions were. Governmental regulations have nothing to do with that: there were no "green policies" in 1500, yet what did medieval cities look like? Plague-ridden hellholes with animal feces everywhere, flies, muggers, rotten food... You are not going to get "green" in that emission-less environment.

Go to your downtown and take a walk. Enjoy knowing that you are walking in a downtown with a better environment than any downtown in any city in the world had had before the 21st century.

Your last few paragraphs are interesting. I remember another user around here saying that he will commit a suicide if Trump becomes president - apparently life will not be worth living on this planet in that case - and you praised him for that. Is that your positive vision of the future you are talking about?

Lastly, existence of bad arguments against "green energy" does not imply that there are no good arguments. That is a common blunder people overly invested in political nonsense make: they get so used to the "other side"'s bad arguments that they start automatically treating every argument against their position as belonging to the same pile of bad arguments.

You have not really pointed out any flaws in my reasoning. I do not care what Republicans say: I say what I say. Would you be so kind as to criticize my arguments when talking to me?

Bogan

@MayCaesar ;    I remember another user around here saying that he will commit a suicide if Trump becomes president -

I hope that was Barnadot?   

Barnardot

@Bogan ;@MayCaesar ;    I remember another user around here saying that he will commit a suicide if Trump becomes president -  I hope that was Barnadot?   

Well, I bet you do since I am about the only one here who bothers to catch you out on your dishonest tricks and ugly bigots crap. 

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@Bogan ;@MayCaesar ;    I remember another user around here saying that he will commit a suicide if Trump becomes president -  I hope that was Barnadot?   

Well, I bet you do since I am about the only one here who bothers to catch you out on your dishonest tricks and ugly bigots crap. 

Bernie, don't kill yourself.  No matter who wins, life goes on.  Now Bernie, I've had a lot of racial discussions with Bogie.  Unfortunately, his views are very similar to DEI racists who think that justice is about equal outcomes for groups, rather than  true justice which is about evenly applied processes for EACH INDIVIDUAL.  There isn't a lot of difference in the racism that Bogie believes in and the racism that leftists believe in - both focus on group outcomes, and disregard the individual.

Back on topic - Kamala Harris' plan to end fracking (which is what she really believes), would disproportionately hurt minority groups because they are least able to afford the increases in higher electricity and transportation costs.  It doesn't seem like some Democrats care about the financial impact on minorities because of their policies.  No doubt, they will claim, after the policies devastate minority communities again, that it is the fault of 'white supremacy', when in reality, its because Democrats were elected.   

Bogan

@just_sayin ;   Bernie, don't kill yourself.  No matter who wins, life goes on.  Now Bernie, I've had a lot of racial discussions with Bogie.  Unfortunately, his views are very similar to DEI racists who think that justice is about equal outcomes for groups, rather than  true justice which is about evenly applied processes for EACH INDIVIDUAL.  There isn't a lot of difference in the racism that Bogie believes in and the racism that leftists believe in - both focus on group outcomes, and disregard the individual. 

If your daughter came home to you with her new boyfriend who was a Hells Angel, would you ignore his demographic associations, and only judge him as an individual who's individual qualities you do not even know?      

Barnardot

@Bogan @just_sayin ;If your daughter came home to you with her new boyfriend who was a Hells Angel, would you ignore his demographic associations, and only judge him as an individual who's individual qualities you do not even know? 

Probably not. But if I had to turn the light on to see him, I couldn't give a toss.

just_sayin

Bogan said:

@just_sayin ;   Bernie, don't kill yourself.  No matter who wins, life goes on.  Now Bernie, I've had a lot of racial discussions with Bogie.  Unfortunately, his views are very similar to DEI racists who think that justice is about equal outcomes for groups, rather than  true justice which is about evenly applied processes for EACH INDIVIDUAL.  There isn't a lot of difference in the racism that Bogie believes in and the racism that leftists believe in - both focus on group outcomes, and disregard the individual. 

If your daughter came home to you with her new boyfriend who was a Hells Angel, would you ignore his demographic associations, and only judge him as an individual who's individual qualities you do not even know?      

My cousin is in a biker club, not Hells Angels though.  My mom is really old school.  She thinks my cousin is gay because he wears earrings and has sleeves of tattoos.  I had to explain to her that it doesn't work that way.  LOL.  Anyway, I like my cousin, he's cool.  He rides me about not having any tattoos on my body and I have have to explain that if you have a machine like a Lamborghini you don't put bumper stickers on it.  LOL 

Bogan

@just_sayin ;    My cousin is in a biker club, not Hells Angels though.  My mom is really old school.  She thinks my cousin is gay because he wears earrings and has sleeves of tattoos.  I had to explain to her that it doesn't work that way.  LOL.  Anyway, I like my cousin, he's cool.  He rides me about not having any tattoos on my body and I have have to explain that if you have a machine like a Lamborghini you don't put bumper stickers on it.  LOL 

You dodged answering my question by tossing a very smelly red herring.        You did that because you knew that my premise, that people are usually judged by their group associations, is a valid premise.   Your premise, that people can only be judged as individuals is invalid.   But you can't admit that you are wrong.  Hence, the red herring.  

Barnardot

@just_sayin @Bogan ;both focus on group outcomes, and disregard the individual. 

I think we are entitled to judge people by their associations. If you’re going to go around dressed like a biker then people are entitled to call you a bad ace. 

It doesn’t matter if a biker tries to come a cross as some sort of fun guy. He is a bad ace biker period. It is called guilt by association. 

Just like if you say that you’re a hard core Christian then I am entitled to call you a bigoted homophobic nit and tough titties if you don’t like it.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin @Bogan ;both focus on group outcomes, and disregard the individual. 

I think we are entitled to judge people by their associations. If you’re going to go around dressed like a biker then people are entitled to call you a bad ace. 

It doesn’t matter if a biker tries to come a cross as some sort of fun guy. He is a bad ace biker period. It is called guilt by association. 

Just like if you say that you’re a hard core Christian then I am entitled to call you a bigoted homophobic nit and tough titties if you don’t like it.

Sorry Bernie and Bogie, we are each responsible for our own conduct.  Now it is true that hanging around the wrong people can prove to be a negative influence.  The Bible says:

"Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm" Proverbs 13:20

Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” - 1 Corinthians 15:33

But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. - 1 Corinthians 5:11

However, we should evaluate people by their own actions, not the actions of others.  The Bible talks about how we are not to judge the son for the sins of the father.  

Bogan

@just_sayin

JS quote   "Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm" Proverbs 13:20

Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” - 1 Corinthians 15:33

“But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.” - 1 Corinthians 5:11

 So, you claim that God says that people can only be judged as individuals, and then you post up three bible quotes where your God instructs you that people can be judged by their group associations?  And you were unable to see the clear contradiction in these religious instructions?     

      

JS quote     However, we should evaluate people by their own actions, not the actions of others.  The Bible talks about how we are not to judge the son for the sins of the father. 

 It also has three quotes from your god which you submitted above which contradicts your claim that people can only be judged as individuals.     That is the problem with religious thinking.    It tells you that you must believe in concepts which are all diametrically opposed.   Religious people such as your good self are incapable of even recognising these contradictions.     Confronted with clear religious contradictions, your minds just jump a few cogs without grinding your mental gears, and they pick whatever contradictory instruction is appropriate at the time.      It is just amazing how even perfectly intelligent people such as JS and Ricky have this capacity to block out their normally rational minds when reality differs from their religious wishful thinking. 

just_sayin

@Bogan
So, you claim that God says that people can only be judged as individuals, and then you post up three bible quotes where your God instructs you that people can be judged by their group associations?  And you were unable to see the clear contradiction in these religious instructions?   

Its not contradictory.  People can be a positive or negative influence.  However, we are each responsible for our own conduct.  People should be evaluated as individuals.  Bogie.

 It also has three quotes from your god which you submitted above which contradicts your claim that people can only be judged as individuals.     That is the problem with religious thinking.    It tells you that you must believe in concepts which are all diametrically opposed. 

You can be influenced by other people - that's a true claim.  And you are responsible for your own conduct.  That a true claim.  You are not responsible for what others choose to do.  That's a true claim.  And you should be evaluated on what you do, not what someone else did.  That's a true claim also.  I'm not seeing the contradiction.

Factfinder

@just_sayin @Bogan

Any of you two care to explain how this bickering over fairytale myths and cowardly mindsets has anything to do with fracking? 

Bogan

@Factfinder ;   Any of you two care to explain how this bickering over fairytale myths and cowardly mindsets has anything to do with fracking? 

Go and "debate" with Barnadot, he is about your intellectually challenged level.    Failing that, go and play in the middle of the road.