Posted on 07/12/2016 8:52:33 AM PDT by rktman
While radical environmentalists jointly claim greenhouse gases and fossil fuels such as oil and coal are responsible for global warming and endangering the planet, there is strong disagreement among them about what energy sources are acceptable.
Environmental activists and groups are divided on natural gas and nuclear power, and even differ in their approach towards fossil fuel companies, according to The New York Times. Politically, the left is divided too, as evidenced by the recent, narrow decision not to include a ban on “fracking” in the Democratic platform.
The New York Times science writer John Schwartz reported in a July 11 article that in spite of the “green” movement’s growth, it suffers from “pronounced schisms” due to “conflicting opinions” over the best renewable energy solution
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
They don’t want a solution even if it’s solar/wind.
Oh, but they do agree!
They all agree that we shouldn’t have any!..............
NUCLEAR. The only real solution.........................
Small wonder why there is now a race to develop Alvin Weinberg's research into molten-salt reactors to commercial operation.
If some engineer came up with an energy source that was practically free and that had no impact on the environment whatsoever, and could be immediately implemented in places like Africa, the leftists would work eleventy billion hours overtime to figure out how to demonize it world wide, make no mistake an energy source like that would be fought against harder than any single invention in world history.
They are all arguing about what would be the best way to get back to the stone age.
Nothing like the smell of dung fires in the morning while you sit on the veranda of your mud hut.
If your problem is carbon (which is a really sketch proposition) logic dictates that you should be cheerleading for nuke plants.
You have it right. It is clear that anyone who wants to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere (Not proven IMO to be a net contributor to any environmental disaster) should prefer natural gas to coal and nuclear to natural gas. Nuclear should be developed to be cost competitive, as a capitalist I agree with this — and so natural gas may have a nitch to fill until the nuclear plant designers can finish their ultimate solution.
The use of low cost electricity will result in more electric vehicles and water (from desalination) and could result in greater density of green plants on the planet. All a net improvement for the environmental movement, but:
The environmental movement is not concerned about the environment and they haven’t been for years. They are concerned about power and thus are linked at the hip to the democratic party.
So it is very true that an improvement in energy in terms of clean energy or low cost energy would be fought because these are the necessary tools for growth. And the environment movement is against all forms of growth except that kind of growth that benefits the democratic party (such as illegal immigration).
We could cut our “fracking” needs in half if everyone opposed to “fracking” simply started using Gerbils in fan-wheel cages to supply their energy needs instead of hypocritically opposing the production of that which they consume in vast quantities.
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.