• 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!

Renewable Energy Reported to Threaten Biodiversity

bluesmoke said:
That man hasn't been on earth for those thousands of millennia and is so would be no longer given the havoc you mention previously wreaked. CO2, though, has not been higher since 1950 going forward for the last 800,000 yrs, which pretty much covers how long humans have been around.
Click to expand...
That's my point.

For all of those thousands of millennia minus the most resent few hundred, the climate has wrecked havoc. Regardless of what CO2 does.
 
Tim the plumber said:
What species will likely to be made extinct by the warming as per the IPCC's climate forcasts?

Just name one. Just one which would be endangered by the warming aqt max.
Click to expand...


I don't respond to posters with requested info when they have a history of not providing same for me, though I have for them. You've never backed up what you say when asked. I have when you've asked same of me. You don't deserve honoring such request. Goodbye.
 
Unintentional humor is sometimes the best humor.


Claim: Gujarat Solar Park is Failing to Fulfil Mandatory UN Renewable Energy Gender Empowerment Requirements
Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Dr. Willie Soon; According to North Michigan Assistant Professor Professor Ryan Stock, despite having a “gender positive” female empowerment programme, Gujarat Solar Park is failing to meet mandatory UN gender targets. Bright as night: Illuminating the antinomies of ‘gender positive’ solar development Ryan Stock Highlights The Gujarat Solar Park…
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
From the link in #12:

1970 to 2016 = 3 extinctions, or 0.7 extinctions per decade, 0.07 extinctions per year

We can conclude, then, that the species extinction rate has been 96% lower in the last approx. 45 years — when global warming has been rapid and CO2 concentrations have supposedly reached “dangerous” levels — than it was in the 470 years prior to 1970, when temperatures and CO2 were at cooler, “safer” levels.
Click to expand...


It's not the number of extinction. It's the threat. That's the claim. Though much is happening now due to climate change/global warming/CO2, it's the threat of what will happen. To not prepare nor take action to prevent the threat from happening is to wait until it's too late.
 
bluesmoke said:
It's not the number of extinction. It's the threat. That's the claim. Though much is happening now due to climate change/global warming/CO2, it's the threat of what will happen. To not prepare nor take action to prevent the threat from happening is to wait until it's too late.
Click to expand...
Ah, so it's a boogeyman argument. Got it.
 
bluesmoke said:
I don't respond to posters with requested info when they have a history of not providing same for me, though I have for them. You've never backed up what you say when asked. I have when you've asked same of me. You don't deserve honoring such request. Goodbye.
Click to expand...
What question have I not answered ever?
 
Jack Hays said:
Well well well. Looks like we're in for some "Green on Green" combat.


Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity

This was just published in Nature Communications.…
Continue reading →

This was just published in Nature Communications.
That’s gonna leave a mark.
Here is the Abstract, (emphasis mine):
Renewable energy production is necessary to halt climate change and reverse associated biodiversity losses. However, generating the required technologies and infrastructure will drive an increase in the production of many metals, creating new mining threats for biodiversity. Here, we map mining areas and assess their spatial coincidence with biodiversity conservation sites and priorities.​
Mining potentially influences 50 million km2 of Earth’s land surface, with 8% coinciding with Protected Areas, 7% with Key Biodiversity Areas, and 16% with Remaining Wilderness. Most mining areas (82%) target materials needed for renewable energy production, and areas that overlap with Protected Areas and Remaining Wilderness contain a greater density of mines (our indicator of threat severity) compared to the overlapping mining areas that target other materials.​
Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.​
​
This is not convenient. . . .
Full paper here.
Click to expand...
So-called "renewable energy" is not about environmentalism. It's anti-fossil fuels.
I just entered into the petrochemical industry. I've learned about a lot of organizations and so forth that really govern the petrochemical industry various other connected industries.

One that came up was an organization called the API. This is the American petroleum institute. This is a non-government organization that sets standards for petrochemical processing. It started right after world War II and its main goal was to keep track of all the oil producing wells.

So this organization was created for the simple reason if it wasn't created the government would regulate it. It seems like the 1970s was when this environmentalism really took a big step. Of course at that time we were headed for an ice age. I don't have a problem with believing we should care about our environment I don't think anyone does outside of a few cartoon villains. I also don't have a problem with energy coming from things like wind and solar. I don't think our government should play favorites. Have you noticed the division on this Eco activism splits almost precisely on party lines? This isn't an accident. So the API oversees 8% of our entire countries economy. This is a massive amount of money. This is the only place I'm confused and it's a chicken in the egg scenario. When Democrats became anti-energy the petrochemical industry had to choose sides. So what politicians do you think they donate to? How much do you think they can afford to spend on lobbyists?

That's why an electric car that requires refining copper ore, refined lithium and building it out of petrochemical products is considered green even though they have a much shorter lifespan, and the fallout from disposing of these after their seven to ten year lifespan is much worse. The greatest car you can buy is a used car cuz nobody had to produce anything, keeps it from going into a landfill.

It's green because the person who owns it won't be giving money to the petrochemical industry. Well that's why places like California want to ban the sale of new internal combustion engine cars in 15 years. They don't have any petrochemical industry there. Three times someone goes to fill up a massive amount of California money goes to Texas or Pennsylvania or various other states that produce petroleum.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So-called "renewable energy" is not about environmentalism. It's anti-fossil fuels.
I just entered into the petrochemical industry. I've learned about a lot of organizations and so forth that really govern the petrochemical industry various other connected industries.

One that came up was an organization called the API. This is the American petroleum institute. This is a non-government organization that sets standards for petrochemical processing. It started right after world War II and its main goal was to keep track of all the oil producing wells.

So this organization was created for the simple reason if it wasn't created the government would regulate it. It seems like the 1970s was when this environmentalism really took a big step. Of course at that time we were headed for an ice age. I don't have a problem with believing we should care about our environment I don't think anyone does outside of a few cartoon villains. I also don't have a problem with energy coming from things like wind and solar. I don't think our government should play favorites. Have you noticed the division on this Eco activism splits almost precisely on party lines? This isn't an accident. So the API oversees 8% of our entire countries economy. This is a massive amount of money. This is the only place I'm confused and it's a chicken in the egg scenario. When Democrats became anti-energy the petrochemical industry had to choose sides. So what politicians do you think they donate to? How much do you think they can afford to spend on lobbyists?

That's why an electric car that requires refining copper ore, refined lithium and building it out of petrochemical products is considered green even though they have a much shorter lifespan, and the fallout from disposing of these after their seven to ten year lifespan is much worse. The greatest car you can buy is a used car cuz nobody had to produce anything, keeps it from going into a landfill.

It's green because the person who owns it won't be giving money to the petrochemical industry. Well that's why places like California want to ban the sale of new internal combustion engine cars in 15 years. They don't have any petrochemical industry there. Three times someone goes to fill up a massive amount of California money goes to Texas or Pennsylvania or various other states that produce petroleum.
Click to expand...

No petrochemical industry is California?? I am afraid you are mistaken. California is the fourth-largest state producer of crude oil in the US.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Big-Is-Californias-Oil-And-Gas-Industry.html
 
bluesmoke said:
The first two sentences of your excerpt are flat-out statement of the necessity of renewable energy production to halt climate change despite the threat to biodiversity.
Click to expand...
That has to be the dumbest sentence I have seen in quite a few years. There is no halting the changing climate. As long as Earth has had an atmosphere, there has been a changing climate. Although, it does not surprise me in the least that you would seek to destroy all life on the planet by removing the entire atmosphere in order to "halt climate change."
 
CLAX1911 said:
I wonder why they're so desperate to shut down that industry in California.
Click to expand...

Just because California wants to end the sale of the ICE does not automatically mean they want to shut down the whole petroleum industry. There will be a need for many different petroleum products for many years after they do this. There will be plenty of vehicles still on the road that need gas and industries that will need petroleum products.

You obviously still have a lot to learn about the petroleum industry.
 
Glitch said:
Although, it does not surprise me in the least that you would seek to destroy all life on the planet by removing the entire atmosphere in order to "halt climate change."
Click to expand...

:ROFLMAO:

Talk about the dumbest sentence I have seen in years...

:LOL:

Nobody is seeking to remove the entire atmosphere.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's my point.

For all of those thousands of millennia minus the most resent few hundred, the climate has wrecked havoc. Regardless of what CO2 does.
Click to expand...

Ok, and?
 
Glitch said:
That has to be the dumbest sentence I have seen in quite a few years. There is no halting the changing climate. As long as Earth has had an atmosphere, there has been a changing climate. Although, it does not surprise me in the least that you would seek to destroy all life on the planet by removing the entire atmosphere in order to "halt climate change."
Click to expand...

How about restated as minimizing our influence on climate? Sound better, or are you going to have a ludicrous interpretation of that too?
 
Jack Hays said:
Unintentional humor is sometimes the best humor.


Claim: Gujarat Solar Park is Failing to Fulfil Mandatory UN Renewable Energy Gender Empowerment Requirements
Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Dr. Willie Soon; According to North Michigan Assistant Professor Professor Ryan Stock, despite having a “gender positive” female empowerment programme, Gujarat Solar Park is failing to meet mandatory UN gender targets. Bright as night: Illuminating the antinomies of ‘gender positive’ solar development Ryan Stock Highlights The Gujarat Solar Park…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

The conclusion of this article is absolutely absurd.
 
Deuce said:
The conclusion of this article is absolutely absurd.
Click to expand...
". . . Obviously if you thought solar parks are something to do with renewable energy, you are mistaken; Solar parks are for implementing United Nations gender empowerment programmes."
 
Paradoxical said:
What is the originating power source now for electric cars? How are the batteries made? What from? How many electric plants are solar or wind powered?

You folks never think things through.
Click to expand...


.....
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's my point.

For all of those thousands of millennia minus the most resent few hundred, the climate has wrecked havoc. Regardless of what CO2 does.
Click to expand...


But none of what caused that havoc is as evident a factor in global warming as is the CO2 contributed by man. That's my point. We are experiencing AGW that is affecting the planet like no other time in human history we are able to sustain going forward w/o reducing CO2 contribution. Or, just live with the results and adapt as necessary.
 
bluesmoke said:
But none of what caused that havoc is as evident a factor in global warming as is the CO2 contributed by man. That's my point. We are experiencing AGW that is affecting the planet like no other time in human history we are able to sustain going forward w/o reducing CO2 contribution. Or, just live with the results and adapt as necessary.
Click to expand...
What do you see as the worst aspect of a warmer world as per the IPCC's climate numbers?
 
bluesmoke said:
But none of what caused that havoc is as evident a factor in global warming as is the CO2 contributed by man. That's my point. We are experiencing AGW that is affecting the planet like no other time in human history we are able to sustain going forward w/o reducing CO2 contribution. Or, just live with the results and adapt as necessary.
Click to expand...
Do you have any direct mesurements of what CO2 does? No. Only assumed modeling.

Our largest impact is due to land use changes and pollution. CO2 has very little warming impact. The increase in surface insolation over a decade, after we started clearing the skies of pollution, is far greater than a doubling of CO2.

Here are some actual solar measurements, at the surface of the earth, in various locations:

U3qSQcP.jpg


Please notice the "slope" in each graph. That is the average increase in watts per square meter per year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom