Skip to comments.
Sustaining Environmentalists
Wall St Journal ^
| August 27, 2002
| PHILIP STOTT
Posted on 08/27/2002 6:07:43 AM PDT by SJackson
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
For the first Earth Day in 1970, overpopulation guru Paul Ehrlich wrote a fictitious report for the Progressive presenting an eco-gloomster's portrait of the U.S. in 2000. The population had fallen to 22.6 million, 8% of the current population, and the diet was less than the daily calorific intake of an African. By 1974, Mr. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne, worried that "global cooling" would diminish agricultural output -- that the world was becoming unsustainable.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: badscience; commyenviralists; ecoelitistfascists; ecowatermelons; enviralistshateus; falseecoprophets; fascistenvirals; noscience; racistenviros; socialistenvirals; utopianenviros
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
To: SJackson
nuclear power, no, solar energy, yes. (Despite the fact that most photovoltaic cells take more energy to produce than they will ever generate in their lifetime.) I had no idea that that producing most photovoltaic cells requires more energy than they'll ever produce.
Thank you WSJ, and Mr Stott.
To: thinktwice; Carry_Okie
I had no idea that that producing most photovoltaic cells requires more energy than they'll ever produce.Same with ethanol. If you add up all the energy used to grow the corn - the diesel fuel for the tractors and harvesters, the fertilizer, etc. - and add in the heat energy used to distill it, you come up with more energy used than it produces when burned in automobiles.
Some call it "burning food".
To: CJ Wolf
notice how this is buried in the WSJ where you would have to register to see it...Not only register, but pay them $50 per year, too. It's worth it, IMO.
To: SJackson
What's more telling is that when you actually try to point out the absurdity of this so-called "Sustainable Development", all they can muster is to simply label a person as an "isolationist", without ever weighing the merits of the argument.
24
posted on
08/27/2002 2:45:01 PM PDT
by
dfwgator
To: thinktwice
Hey tt -
I'm no greenie weenie but I am an engineer and this claim rang pretty false with me. So I "googled" the key words and came up with this page:
http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvlever.htm
I haven't checked out the references yet and so I have no opinion on who is right. But I do know that it is important to check out claims on either side of an argument. We don't want or need to give the socialists potential ammunition against us.
Thanks for FReeping.
- r.y.
To: SJackson
The weirdest thing about old lefties (communists) like Paul Erlich is that they call themselves "progressives."
They are just plain old psychopaths, the kind that have been around for millions of years, wanting power over people's lives. Just HUNGRY for power. Period.)
To: rogue yam
Thank you for providing the engineering reality check website about photovoltaic cell efficiency (energy in / energy out) studies. Looks like the WSJ author was right in retrospect, marginally correct in current times, and -- perhaps -- wrong about future PV efficiencies.
To: o_zarkman44
Thanks for saying that.
A ditto BUMP! to the top.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson