Renewable energy has been the poster child for politicians and celebrity personages for the last few years to replace fossil fuel energy sources. In their quest to rid the Earth of the well-paying, job-producing, general-fund pot-of-gold fossil fuel industry, they think that solar/wind power is the answer.
The primary justification for their concern is that temperatures have been creeping up, and when this data is used to feed computer models, they conclude that drastic measures are needed to save the Earth. The current administration in Washington, D.C., wants to commit trillions of tax dollars to the Green New Deal as a means to “solve the problem.”
Their proposed remedies fail to recognize that there were dramatic changes in the climate thousands of years before the union of Adam and Eve evolved into 7.8 billion humans crawling the Earth and creating their resultant pollution. The melting of the ice cap that covered Canada and the northern tier of the United States thousands of years ago is a perfect example; the result was likely the creation of the Grand Canyon.
When people first began collecting weather data, they used instrumentation that was developed centuries ago. All this data was dutifully recorded, and eventually the National Weather Service was created in 1870 to collect and analyze the information. The National Weather Service would then try to predict the weather with simple instruments and reliance on human interpretation of the data to guess what tomorrow’s weather would look like.
But these measurements are relatively new when compared to the meteorological life of the Earth. As public awareness evolves, many people find that it is becoming more and more obvious that predictions of doom and gloom by environmental activists is probably a false alarm based on tainted and frequently inaccurate analysis, faulty computer models, or purposely misrepresented information.
The use of core samples taken from either the Earth or glacial fields is the most reliable way to determine how the Earth’s climate has evolved since it was created. The Earth is still evolving; witness the earthquakes that are recorded daily, volcanic eruptions, and “historic” weather heat/cold/rain/snow events that are recorded annually.
But is their dream really very evolved if it’s to be independent from a form of energy production that has existed since people lived in caves? Even cave dwellers realized that a warm fire powered by fossil fuels (coal) or wood was an effective and reliable way to heat their homes and warm their food.
Many of the supporters of solar/wind power travel from place to place in private jets, own large estates that are energy hogs, and drive or are driven in large luxury vehicles. In other words, they are large consumers of fossil fuel energy. Their estates have fuel-powered generators that are activated when the lights go out.
They use cellphones, watch videos, cook with microwaves, and own clothing that’s currently made from petroleum-based materials; are they willing to do without these conveniences? The batteries used to power the vehicle of their dreams also require a considerable amount of energy and precious metals to produce.
For the last couple of years, California has experienced power brown/blackouts several times a year. Last year, both PG&E and Southern California Edison implemented precautionary power shutdowns because their poorly maintained power lines were the cause of several large and very destructive wildfires throughout the state.
This year, wind turbines shut down in Texas because blades were covered with ice, and the motors stopped spinning for the same reason. Millions who had converted to all-electric homes were left without a heat and light source during blizzard conditions for days.
All-electric homes were touted as the “thing of the future” in the late 1950s and many housing tracts, some here in my hometown of Lompoc, were constructed without natural gas service. The people who live in these homes will tell you that their electric bills are many times higher than those of their neighbors who have natural gas appliances.
Now California and nearby Santa Barbara want to require all-electric homes for all new construction; they also want to eliminate the use of fossil fuel energy. On a national level, the Biden administration is willing to try and spend trillions of dollars to support green energy, a path riddled with failures during the Obama administration.
Renewable energy makes sense only as an augmentation source for fossil fuel energy, which has been proven as a reliable source for more than 100 years. The arguments in favor of relying totally on renewable energy are hollow and when put under a microscope fall apart easily. Δ
Ron Fink is filling in this week for our regular Rhetoric and Reason writer. He writes to New Times from Lompoc. Send your thoughts, comments, and opinionated letters to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Mar 25 – Apr 4, 2021.
This is a really tired and tiresome argument. I will be the first to admit that there is a lot I don’t know about climate, but this piece did not serve to educate me. When a writer attributes, as an authoritative source, “many people”, he is really grasping at straws. Yes, there have been, and may be again, changes in climate due to natural causes. These have occurred over thousands or even millions of years, not in the short time spans at which we are now looking. Most occurred when human life was not present on earth. The planet has a finite, if not completely known, life span, and drastic climate change will probably precede its demise, but that is not the issue. The issue is what is going to happen over the next 20 to let’s say 400 to 500 years, which is about all we might think about trying to influence at this point, and whether or not it is worth our while to try to do so. My gut tells me that it is, but my gut is no better a source than “many people”. If you have some evidence or reasoned arguments, let’s see it/them. Otherwise, pipe down. You are only adding noise.
Just another useless opinion echoed by Al Fonzi and other “too scared of change” conservative writers. We’re past due for clean energy. Get with the times, Ronnie.
Ah yes, the hackneyed diatribe arguing that because those evil liberal politicians, who want to take away the writer’s Escalade, also use gas powered transportation, then that somehow proves that anthropomorphic global warming is not really happening. It is a tired argument, akin to the one that says that a sinister cabal of climate scientists are out to cash in on what they know is false.
The facts, however, speak otherwise. 97 out of every 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers (the gold standard in science) have chronicled that man’s consistent spew of carbon into the atmosphere is causing severe problems, including unprecedented fires, droughts, hurricanes and sea level rise. If it’s not checked, it will continue to cost us trillions of dollars, far more money than we pay those high wage workers who extract fossil fuels.
I get it, the writer has no actual facts to back up his claims so he simply relies on “What about-ism” and the idea that all of those scientists don’t mean what they are writing because they just want the latest grant money bestowed upon them by dishonest politicians.
Hogwash!
I’ll be incredibly happy when the New Times moves away from its weekly “Rhetoric and Reason” column, which is all rhetoric and very little reason.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consen…
Costa Rica is part of a group of countries which have claimed their 100% renewables status in recent years. Iceland, Paraguay, and Albania are all either at 100% or very close, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Hey lefty climate change hoaxers…explain why they found aquatic dinosaurs in the now deserts…what kind of cars were they driving back then???…you dip shits !!!
“the now deserts”
English spoken here?
I assume you know that over the eons the planet has warmed and cooled numerous times for different reasons. After all, the dinosaurs did live 70 million years ago. Today, however, the broad majority of climate scientists believe that the continuous pumping of carbon into the atmosphere—to the tune of about 40 billion metric tons each year—is “very likely” the reason for our current warming trends and that by seriously cutting back on the consumption of fossil fuels we can begin to mitigate the negative effects of said warming.
And, even if 9 out of 10 climatologists are dead wrong, it clearly makes sense to move away from the burning of carbon for environmental and health reasons, among others.
I mean, I get it, the main point of your post was to hurl insults and to suggest that because I believe what the scientists are telling us is true (I wonder if you doubt your doctor when he gives you a prescription?) then I must be an inferior life form.
Just not sure why you would call me names simply because I disagree with you.
Nothing says “I’m here to talk about science” better than starting with “the union of Adam and Eve evolved into 7.8 billion humans.”
There’s no longer much reason to argue about this. Industry leaders throughout the world have studied the situation deeply and have concluded that so-called renewable energy is more economical and profitable in the long run than relying on fossil fuels. So the shift will be coming quickly No matter the politics. You can either ride the wave or drown trying to hold back the tide.
We need a Green Nuclear Deal! @campaign_GND
We need modern technology and an acceptable and safe way to store toxic radioactive waste for 10,000 or more years. Experts agree that what’s happening at Diablo Canyon is not sustainable or safe for the public in the long term. Let the “old lady of the canyon” retire gracefully.
Would anyone care to explain to the public the annual cost of storing and monitoring a million pounds of toxic radioactive waste in a seaside, tourist oriented, earthquake and tsunami vulnerable community? That is something that the Diablo cheerleaders avoid talking about.
Diablo could be shut down tomorrow but we will be dealing with it’s toxic waste and paying for it for at least 10,000 years.
If our energy future is going to include nuclear, we need to use modern technology and not insist on continuing to use technology that is more than half a century old and poses numerous problems to the community and the world in general.
Thankfully, great strides are being made in renewable energy technology as we speak.