Posted on 07/02/2023 8:15:27 AM PDT by Signalman
Pew Research Center published the results of its new survey on June 28. While climate alarmists’ predictions have been consistently and wildly wrong for 50 years now, with one unscientific claim after another proven false, the media, government, and institutions continue pounding in the narrative — and with some apparently considerable effects:
74% of Americans say they support the country’s participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. 67% of U.S. adults prioritize the development of alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and hydrogen power over increasing the production of fossil fuel energy sources. I have previously explained in more detail how “green” energy is actually toxic for the environment, besides being inefficient and unprofitable. In other words, “green” energy is a lose-lose option. Solar panels and wind turbines have killed billions of birds, for instance, and offshore wind turbines can be deadly for whales (not to mention, wind turbines and solar panels generate plenty of toxic waste). And those “green” electric vehicles (EV)? EV batteries, which have to be replaced every few years, are very toxic to manufacture and dispose of.
[Pew:] Less than half of the public (40%) favors phasing out the production of gas-powered cars and trucks. Support for this policy is 7 percentage points lower than it was two years ago. And underscoring the strong feelings big changes to American life can engender, 45% say they would feel upset if gas-powered cars were phased out; fewer than half as many (21%) would feel excited.
You mean Americans don’t want to switch to unreliable electric cars that have to depend upon an already strained grid? No way!
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
All else is dross...
I’ve alway said that the realization the costs/consequences of the green agenda would be the death of that agenda.
You have noticed how diligently the greenies work to obscure the true costs of their agenda?
Lots of dismaying info in this article. There is a tiny glimmer of hope: “Support for ending gas-powered cars and trucks is 7 percentage points lower than it was two years ago.”
This is dismaying: only 45% say they would feel upset if gas-powered cars were phased out.
I’d hazard a guess that the 55% who would NOT feel upset have never had to live with an EV.
What really needs to happen is a national education program as to why the “green” dream is a an impossibility.
I don’t believe in climate change but agree that reusable energy (yesterdays term for “sustainable energy”) is a laudable goal. But the tech isn’t there yet to transition and transitioning (out of the gutter ya filthy pervs) to these weaker reusables while ignoring nuclear is a disaster waiting to happen. (And already has in many places)
Given that the truth is largely suppressed and actual ‘science’ is prohibited from the public square, the extent of ignorance is not surprising.
In answering polls today, responders are more likely to give answers that won’t get them in trouble. In other words, lie. Wokeness includes a reign of terror that has suppressed free speech. That’s why I never respond to polls, since not every topic of a poll is a hill to die on. The free expression of ideas is far behind us.
I don’t believe in climate change but agree that reusable energy (yesterdays term for “sustainable energy”) is a laudable goal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sure.... just makes sure that the entire scope of the implications for the alternative(s) are understood and included when the evaluation is done. So far, I haven’t seen any ‘alternatives’ that aren’t at least as bad as what they are trying to replace....
If only people would consider ‘climate change’ from the perspective of a Neanderthal, instead of recent weather history, they would see it’s actually cooler now than when Neanderthals first roamed the Earth.
“I don’t believe in climate change but agree that reusable energy (yesterdays term for “sustainable energy”) is a laudable goal. But the tech isn’t there yet to transition and transitioning (out of the gutter ya filthy pervs) to these weaker reusables while ignoring nuclear is a disaster waiting to happen. (And already has in many places)”
The desire of the people behind this is not about climate or energy. It’s about destroying Western civilization. This is because we’ve been doing the logical thing for two thousand years and we aren’t living in a communist utopia. Therefore, we have to destroy what’s here and (a merical happens) we’ll be living in a communist utopia.
They are geo-engineering effects to fool people into believing in climate change. Some people need a little nudging, some are just ignorant and fall for the fake science and whatever the teevee tells them.
The latest burr up the greenies’ butts: states and cities want to start charging EV owners more for the use of roads. Seems they all believe their EVs have zero impact on our environment and road system (ignoring of course the strip-mining for battery components or the batteries themselves or the need to generate electricity to charge those batteries).
Many see EVs not as a solution, but just as a means of getting rid of personal transportation, period.
The most easily transmitted and fungible form of energy is electrical energy. If abundant and cheap, that is the power delivery system of the future.
But something stands in the way, an abiding belief on the part of “green” environmentalists that electrical energy should be neither cheap nor abundant, and both wind and solar suit this frame of thinking exactly. Dams that produce hydroelectric power are relatively cheap and highly reliable, but the localities are sometimes located far from the point of consumption, and the presence of the dam “might” impact the life cycles of various forms of creatures in the wild. So the dams have to be blown up, and the hydroelectric power potential destroyed in the process.
The burning of hydrocarbon fuels to drive generators that produce electrical power are in fact pretty darned efficient, and can be located in close proximity with the point of consumption, thus reducing long transmission lines from the generating plant to the consumer. But there is some mythical belief that burning hydrocarbon fuels is causing some negative impact on the environment, just how is never fully explored or explained. There actually is no such thing as “fossil fuel”, almost all hydrocarbon compounds are formed by abiotic means, and the very simplest of them all, methane, was present before the earth was even formed, and until life was established on earth, giving rise to organisms that could change carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates and free oxygen, methane remained pretty much in its original state. In the presence of oxygen, methane burns, forming a goodly quantity of heat, carbon dioxide and water.
Life on Earth is in balance. Humans, being carbon based, cannot make the atmosphere uninhabitable by releasing carbon energy, that once came from other living organisms.
Humans can cause pollution and ruin the drinking water. We can irresponsibly farm the land and cause that land to become barren. Humans can kill entire species of animals by hunting, or wipe out insects through deforestation. We know these things to be true, as we’ve done them. But, we cannot ruin the atmosphere by burning oil and coal. Not if we burned all the worlds reserves of it all off in one day would the atmosphere be ruined and the Earth heat up to uninhabitable temperatures.
It takes an outside force to alter the Earth’s atmosphere to the levels that modern climate scientists proclaim will happen through oil burning, such as a massive asteroid strike that wiped out the dinosaurs. Or, an internal geologic force such as massive volcanic activity that caused the largest planetary extinction that we know of. This volcanic activity lasted for hundreds of thousands of years.
That’s what it takes, not simply burning trifle amounts of oil and coal, which really is laughable in amounts considering what the Earth can spit out in volcanoes. Scientists know the history of these extinctions, they know the length of time it took to happen, so they know what they say today about climate change is a lie and a hoax...but....funding.
Majority of Americans are Stupid but not that Stupid
My good FRiend, we may quarrel over the shots and pandemic, but we stand shoulder to shoulder here.
I’ll go a step further…the BIGGEST group of folks who will suffer with EVs are the poor and people living in cities/in apartments. Assuming they can afford these white liberal feel-good enviro-disasters (himt: they can’t), where the heck are they going to recharge? Even affluent apartment complexes haven’t enough chargers - I know of people who have to jack-in at Whole Foods overnight.
Single mothers, wait staff, hourly employees…fossil fuels and the ICE and these items’ supporters are pro-liberty, pro-minority and pro-poor.
People pushing EVs are elitist affluent POSs…or is that PsOS? Either way, I hope they choke on their charging cords.
DoodleBob wrote: “My good FRiend, we may quarrel over the shots and pandemic, but we stand shoulder to shoulder here.”
I feel no animosity towards you because of our differences in opinion. I’ve always felt we have more in common than otherwise.
DoodleBob wrote: “People pushing EVs are elitist affluent POSs…or is that PsOS? Either way, I hope they choke on their charging cords.”
The coastal regions and the big cities are the strongholds driving democrat policies. The elitists and affluent living there see no need to own a car. They uber or fly anywhere they travel. They have no concept of why the rest of us wouldn’t want an EV.
I wonder how many of those live in cities, take the bus everywhere, and have no desire to own a car.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.