• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia's Putin says wind power harmful to birds and worms

Nickyjo said:
Thanks. Well put. I benefit from the info.
Click to expand...

Note

I do believe that we are causing the climate to change through CO2 emissions and support policies to reduce the production of CO2, but a quick sudden change will destroy the worlds economy and likely cause the death of hundreds of millions
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Note

I do believe that we are causing the climate to change through CO2 emissions and support policies to reduce the production of CO2, but a quick sudden change will destroy the worlds economy and likely cause the death of hundreds of millions
Click to expand...

The Paris Accord does not demand a quick sudden change, rather putting forth "reduced emissions goals" to aim for within a decade. Each nation determines its own parameters.

All nations have now signed the Paris Accord. The US is technically still an Accord member until November 5, 2020, but is no longer an active participant courtesy of Donald Trump.

IMHO, if global carbon emissions are not collectively reduced by ≥1.5% by 2050, it will be virtually impossible to mitigate a carbon cascade no matter what we do afterwords.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Paris Accord does not demand a quick sudden change, rather putting forth "reduced emissions goals" to aim for within a decade. Each nation determines its own parameters.

All nations have now signed the Paris Accord. The US is technically still an Accord member until November 5, 2020, but is no longer an active participant courtesy of Donald Trump.

IMHO, if global carbon emissions are not collectively reduced by ≥1.5% by 2050, it will be virtually impossible to mitigate a carbon cascade no matter what we do afterwords.
Click to expand...

I was referring more to those wanting a more extreme, faster reduction in CO2 emissions

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN | Environment | The Guardian
 
Westphalian said:
The world can build all the windmills it likes, but it will still need fossil fuels to make them and for countless other uses.


The Green middle class Marxists (who hate working people), who were so wrong about 'peak oil', have now adopted another monstrous lie about anthropogenic warming. Their real aim is to price the working class out of flying, travel and a decent standard of living whilst abrogating huge profit for themselves from so called 'green' initiatives.

Just a matter of time until ordinary people realise what a sick trick is being played upon them by woke and financially comfortably environmentalists.
Click to expand...
Well, your absence doesn't seem to have improved your posting content. On the contrary, the drivel factor seems to have risen.

Whassamatter, you sore at the massive gains the greens have made in the European election? Or even more sore that your propaganda factory couldn't prevent that?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
What's a "woke and financially comfortably environmentalist?"
Click to expand...
Westfailian is trying his hand at Afro-American vernacular. Trouble being that he doesn't know what the term means. Unsurprisingly.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Indeed. I've taken walks through some large wind farms and I can only recall finding a dead bird once.

I would imagine more birds die in the skies around airports.
Click to expand...
Don't know how things work over at yours, but here we turn the windmills off in bird migration time.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Phasing out fossil fuels would effect agriculture in two main ways

Fertilizer (nitrogen based ) uses methane and other natural gases for manufacture (Haber Bosch Process). Less fertilizer less production. The pesticides are nearly all petrochemical products derived from oil and gas feedstock.

Farm equipment is generally powered by diesel engines. During seeding and harvest season in those two provinces time is often in short supply, so the farmers will work 12-16 hrs a day during that time. Taking 8 hrs to recharge batteries would not be practical if possible. The electrical grid for rural Alberta and Sask is not exactly robust enough to handle thousands of farmers trying to fast charge tractors at 9 pm. So many would not have their equipment charged and ready to go the next morning. Farm equipment is very expensive, a single combine is upwards of $500 000, so replacing the equipment to run on electricity would be expensive.

Last but not least in Alberta and Sask, the majority of electricity is produced by coal, with natural gas coming in second. They do not have enough potential for hydroelectric to become a good option. Wind is of course fickle, and solar would not work for half the time. So nuclear would have to be built, and neither Alberta or Sask have any nuke plants currently so they would need to be built.

Overall the cost of production would drive them out of business, even if they could stay in production
Click to expand...


Okay so they can't compete in a free market, they will go under lime any others that can not adapt...
 
GDViking said:
Okay so they can't compete in a free market, they will go under lime any others that can not adapt...
Click to expand...

In which an entire Canadian province would go bankrupt
 
Westphalian said:
Fossil fuels have raised billions of people out of poverty and facilitated huge advances in human health-care and living standards.


Your statement is pure nonsense.
Click to expand...

You mean it has raised oligarchs into ridiculous wealth? And some in a few oil states? Do you really think the Russian people were raised out of poverty by fossil fuels? Because I do not.

Do you think the people of Venezuela were raised out of poverty?

Fossil fuel was a necessity for a long time due to there being no alternatives to it. It is destructive to the land (often), it is often filthy to extract, can cause very bad climate and environment damage and is stopping us from going full force for renewable energy.

It was a necessary evil IMO and the benefits are now not really weighing up against the negatives (except for oligarchs, oil/coal companies and a few very undemocratic and untrustworthy countries like Venezuela, the Middle East countries, Russia, and others). The only really significant country where it does not fuel dictatorial rule/oppression and the mighty few getting better of it, is the United States of America.
 
Peter King said:
The only really significant country where it does not fuel dictatorial rule/oppression and the mighty few getting better of it, is the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Trump has so far appointed (2) former fossil-fuel lobbyists to manage the federal Environmental Protection Agency which is charged with safeguarding our environment and ecology.

His EPA managers have focused on removing federal regulations that constrained/limited fossil-fuel pollution. The most recent regulation rollback.....

EPA to Roll Back Methane Regulations in Blow to Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom