American election.

[Gary Childress]

I think I am.

You don't want coal, or oil, or nuclear. So what's your alternative?

I've said I don't want coal. I said oil is necessary right now. Nuclear, I'm not 100% sure about but it might be. It's not an all or nothing alternative. We can use some wind and solar to augment fossil fuels and lower emissions a little. That's my alternative--to all fossil fuel, nothing but fossil fuel. Is that what you are advocating, no use whatsoever of solar or wind?

I said solar is useful, but not enough, obviously. Wind, no: the turbines are a massive problem environmentally, the supply of wind is not reliable, they don't produce nearly well enough, and they're expensive and butt ugly, to boot. There's no chance wind is our answer.

So oil and nuclear for you, right now? That's a compromise.

Oil, wind, solar and possibly nuclear for me. You seem to be wrong about wind power as well or would you cite a source that conflicts with the one I posted from the University of Michigan? According to what I posted wind saved us in carbon emissions.

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to be wrong about wind power...

I'm not. I've lived with it. It's nasty.

[Gary Childress]

You seem to be wrong about wind power...

I'm not. I've lived with it. It's nasty.

What's "nasty" about it?

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to be wrong about wind power...

I'm not. I've lived with it. It's nasty.

What's "nasty" about it?

Well, I've said already...expensive, requiring heavy metals for storage, ugly as sin, inefficient, and absolute murder on birds.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not. I've lived with it. It's nasty.

What's "nasty" about it?

Well, I've said already...expensive, requiring heavy metals for storage, ugly as sin, inefficient, and absolute murder on birds.

Well according to the website I linked to, it's a way of reducing greenhouse emissions. I'm sorry if their appearance offends your senses. And more birds are killed annually from flying into skyscrapers. So you might want to save your outrage for the Audobon Society. That's really the best excuse you could come up with to rule out any use of wind power whatsoever? You just want environmentalism to fail. That's stupid. I'm sorry. I'm finished arguing with you. You have it out for environmentalism for God only knows what reason.

[Immanuel Can]

You just want environmentalism to fail.

Too easy. Wouldn't it be convenient if that were true? Unfortunately for you, Gary, it's not.

I know the "greens" tell everybody that everything they suggest will work...recycling plastic, electric cars, cloth diapers, carbon credits, wind power...the whole shooting match. Remember how moving to computers was going to save us all from using paper? How did that work out? But if you really care about the environment, you don't settle for symbolic gestures, and certainly not for counterproductive ones: you only advocate things that work.

Windmills don't.

[tillingborn]

You just want environmentalism to fail.

Too easy. Wouldn't it be convenient if that were true? Unfortunately for you, Gary, it's not.

It isn't that Immanuel Can wants environmentalism to fail so much as he believes it is God's plan for it to fail.

But the most telling of all is Biblical prophecy. It says that all this was due to come. Judgement comes soon after.

You'd have to ask Immanuel Can for his precise interpretation, because eschatological misanthropes have been predicting the end of the world based on "Biblical prophecy" since it was written. The basic format involves an Antichrist, the world burning, the return of Christ and the resurrection of the righteous. For some people Trump and global catastrophe are just part one and two of a sequence that will result in them living happily ever after, while everyone that ever displeased them burns in Hell.

[Skepdick]

You'd have to ask Immanuel Can for his precise interpretation, because eschatological misanthropes have been predicting the end of the world based on "Biblical prophecy" since it was written. The basic format involves an Antichrist, the world burning...

You have to give them some creative license in this regard, but if you were to imagine what it was like round about the time the asteroid hit earth and drove the dinosaurs to extinction, then they really weren't that far off the mark about the world burning...

[Belinda]

Burning fossil fuels is one of several drivers towards apocalypse. Economic growth must cease in order to avoid apocalypse.

Mannie is right about womens' empowerment and contraception. However that is one of several ways we can curb economic growth. Capitalism is another institution that must be limited or abolished. What I am saying is not to suggest some daft Utopia, it is about survival of life on Earth. Before you start, Mannie, communism also aims at economic growth.

Mannie's point about windmills killing birds is true and it makes us feel guilty and remorseful. Renewable energy is not in itself sufficient to turn the tide of economic growth and stave off the apocalypse.

[tillingborn]

Burning fossil fuels is one of several drivers towards apocalypse. Economic growth must cease in order to avoid apocalypse.

Mannie is right about womens' empowerment and contraception. However that is one of several ways we can curb economic growth. Capitalism is another institution that must be limited or abolished. What I am saying is not to suggest some daft Utopia, it is about survival of life on Earth. Before you start, Mannie, communism also aims at economic growth.

Mannie's point about windmills killing birds is true and it makes us feel guilty and remorseful. Renewable energy is not in itself sufficient to turn the tide of economic growth and stave off the apocalypse.

Immanuel Can has a different point of view, but I think you have to consider who is making a case, and why they want you to believe them. Here for instance is Vladimir Putin on windmills:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned against over-reliance on renewable energy, something he says harms birds and other wildlife.
Speaking at a global manufacturing conference, the president said: "Wind-powered generation is good but are birds being taken into account in this case? How many birds are dying?"" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48936941
It's a difficult question to answer:
"Research from the London School of Economics (LSE) estimated in 2014 that by 2020 there could be anywhere between 9,600 and 106,000 bird deaths a year from wind energy in the UK - in other words, we're not sure."
But if Putin is genuinely concerned about wild birds, he no doubt would be alarmed by this statistic:
"It compared this with the estimated 55 million birds killed by domestic cats in the UK each year"
Or this:
"A study published in 2009 looking at the US and Europe estimated that wind farms were responsible for about 0.3 bird deaths for every 1GWh of electricity generated, compared with 5.2 deaths per 1GWh caused by fossil-fuelled power stations."
More recent studies have reached similar conclusions. So why is Putin so concerned about windmills? It could be his love of birds, but perhaps it has something to do with Europe being the biggest market for Russian gas while also being the world leaders in wind energy.

[Immanuel Can]

You just want environmentalism to fail.

Too easy. Wouldn't it be convenient if that were true? Unfortunately for you, Gary, it's not.

It isn't that Immanuel Can wants environmentalism to fail...

That part is right. I'll warrant I spend more time in real contact with the environment than most people ever do. I'm keenly aware of the need for things like clean water. So I want environmental management to succeed...but Environmentalism is something quite different: it's a kind of irrational ideology. And you can see it's irrational, because it embraces "solutions" that are actually harmful to the environment, and declares them "green."

In other words, I don't believe in letting Environmentalism lead us into folly and destructive practices.

[Immanuel Can]

...communism also aims at economic growth...

And fails 100% of the time.

[Dontaskme]

...communism also aims at economic growth...

And fails 100% of the time.

No it does not.

China is the most successful country in the world when it comes to economic growth.

America must be well jel.

[Immanuel Can]

...communism also aims at economic growth...

And fails 100% of the time.

China is the most successful country in the world when it comes to economic growth.

Only recently...and only after it adopted what it calls "Red Capitalism." Before that, it was a backward, miserable place. In many ways, it still is. Look at what it does to human rights. Look what it's doing to Hong Kong right now. Look what it's doing with Tibet. Look what it's doing to the Uighurs. Look what it did with COVID.

That's failure. For all its recent economic gains, it's a human rights horror show.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I'm sorry to say it -- but you don't know what you're talking about.

[henry quirk]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -haitiwaji