Climate change and what it necessitates.
Solar and wind power are ecological disasters. Never mind that they can’t produce enough energy to sustain our population at our current standard of living without relying on fossil fuels (which is why Germany is reverting to coal use). The land use requirements alone are devastating.
If we’re concerned about climate change at all, we have two options:
- Nuclear power
- A devastating decline in energy usage that would result in a massive population collapse, especially in the developing world
That’s it.
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and tidal power will not save us. I’m not saying we should panic over global warming, because an open Northwest Passage would be sweet, and longer growing seasons and more arable land would go a long way to reduce poverty. But it is happening, and it might be catastrophic. If you don’t want the government to deregulate nuclear power and stop subsidising failed alternatives, you can’t pretend to be serious about it.
Evidence is necessary. WUWT.com is a source of evidence. There is no consensus regarding climate change, because there is little understanding of climate scientifically. Having been a professional scientist, I am painfully aware of the political and financial control mechanisms used to prevent actual science, and substitute what is essentially propaganda. This, in fact, is scientific evidence, and against the highly politicized AGW hypothesis. It is not necessary to promote facts or deny them by manipulating science and scientists, and it is almost impossible to avoid acknowledging that climate change as presented by the enemedia is horribly misleading, if one looks at the evidence the enemedia claim to be reporting.
From my research, I must disagree with statements that claim to know what is or is not happening climactically. The best information I can find indicates that, rather than facing warming that presents any threat to civilization, we are on the cusp of an ice age. I do not claim certainty at all, simply my grasp of the evidence I have examined.
Lastly, considering deregulation of any technology that may have existential potential for environmental harm is a questionable course, albeit that government is a dangerous substitute for actual lawful sovereignty. Also, geothermal, solar, and hydroelectric generation has nominal potential to exceed any nuclear power scheme I am aware of, and seem to be able to be effected with fewer potentially existential drawbacks.
Solar can be used off planet for example, hydroelectric can include methods without dams, and in the ocean, and geothermal is simply using the Earth's extant natural nuclear core as a heat source - which does not introduce radioactive waste into the environment.
While I understand your concern, I wonder if you have done much actual research into this topic, as such research I have conducted leads me to very different conclusions.
Thanks!
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
I'm glad I'm not the only one with this point of view.