Celebrating Absurdity.

"Well if Earth day, green energy, and conservation is a big left wing plot, ...."

Liberals....never able to connect the dots.


Where does one find the greatest of 'Global Warming' proponents?

Of course: the United Nations.

And who created the United Nations?

Joseph Stalin.

"The U.N. charter was authored by a communist, the first U.N. Secretary-general was a communist, and the U.N., from the beginning, was designed to be a Union of World Socialist Republics.

Stalin's spy, Alger Hiss was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done. He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. (His death came only ten weeks later). At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one.

.... three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy and sent to prison. Only then did people understand why the emblem of the United Nations looked so much like the emblem of the Soviet Union."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know


Now....this is where you are free to try to deny anything I've posted.


I'm prepared for your silence.
You think everyone who disagrees with you is a communist.


Let's boil it down to something you can handle: choice a. or choice b.

Which represents the view under which America was founded.:


a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


or


b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



Take your time.
Dumb bitch, Franklin established our postal system. He established the idea of public libraries. And, no, those did not represent control over a private person's liberty's.

And it has never been a choice between socialism and capitalism. We use both economic tools in our system as does every other first world nation in the world. It is a choice of what works best where.


Let's boil it down to something you can handle: choice a. or choice b.

Which represents the view under which America was founded.:


a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


or


b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



Take your time.



OK, then.....I'll put you in the 'undecided' column.
Oh, so freedom means that the oligarchs can poison my water, the air my children breathe, and that is all to the good. What a bitch you are. Yes, industry does need to be regulated. Unregulated pollution was what created the first clean air laws. People died because of air pollution.


Smog Deaths In 1948 Led To Clean Air Laws

Sixty years ago, an environmental disaster in southwestern Pennsylvania shocked the country. It forever changed the way Americans think about industrial pollution and their health.

On Oct. 27, 1948, the people of Donora, Pa., woke up to a thick yellow blanket of smog. Charles Stacey, who was a senior at the local high school then, remembers his walk to class that day.

"The smog created a burning sensation in your throat and eyes and nose, but we still thought that was just normal for Donora," Stacey says.

Back then, smog often hung on until late morning in Donora, a small mill town about 25 miles south of Pittsburgh. The town's zinc plant and steel mill belched out endless streams of toxic smoke.

But this smog was different. It darkened the valley for five straight days. That week, Stacey listened to the radio and discovered that the ever-thickening smog had turned lethal: 20 people were dead, and half the town was sick. He says everyone was overwhelmed by the havoc.

Smog Deaths In 1948 Led To Clean Air Laws

Now I am sure that you regard the owners of that mill as in the right. After all, they were just being free and individualists. That 20 of their fellow citizens were dead because of their actions was no concern of theirs.


"Oh, so freedom means that the oligarchs can poison my water,..."


And the voice of the cuckoo is heard in the land.


1. If we leave your suggestion to a vote, the result might go against you.

2. No one is for poisoning anyone's water (don't ask me how I'd vote as to your quote....)

3. The Left strategy is always aimed at convincing morons.....you....that someone is out to get them

4. There are no oligarchs.....just one more of your psychoses.

5. Everyone is using the same air and water.....where is the logic that anyone would poison the water they have to drink, you dunce?

6. If you were killed off.....who'd be greeting those Walmart customers?




7. "Americans have paid a steep price for buying into environmental deception and lies."
Here's How Wrong Past Environmental Predictions Have Been




Oh....and watch your language: it reveals how deeply irrefutable my posts are.
 
Last edited:
Anybody who has been focused on enviro issues for 2 or 3 decades knows that they vanished from the public discussion in the 80s and were displaced by this regime of blaming ALL of them on GW. If a sea slug or tree species is endangered, nobody cares to research or report it if it can't be claimed that it's primary problem is GW..

No sign of coverage on species pressure or habitat reduction if the words GW or CC don't appear.

Hell -- just look at the listings in the USMB Environment forum for evidence that the "movement" has sucked the air out of conservation and environmentalism. Ive even seen post reports that moderation gets from "warmers" complaining that some OTHER enviro topic needs to be moved because "it's not environment".. Simply because it's not about GW.

It's made this whole FORUM -- a single issue game..
Mr. Flacaltenn, then you approve of the orange clown deregulating the laws concerning the mountaintop removal mining. And the deregulation of smokestack pollutant levels. Then you dare claim to be a Conservatonist? Come on, you are just another shill for the 1%, and you give not a damn about the health of our children and grandchildren.

Where did I claim I was in favor of deregulating ALL of that? And where did you get the idea that coal mining was gonna be "unregulated"?? If you'd stop panicking about the El Loco Cheeto Grande for a moment, we might be able to chat about smokestack pollutants and how NONE of the current standards will likely be anything but IMPROVED..

By the simple process of restoring science and DECLASSIFYING CO2 as a "pollutant"...
 
Anybody who has been focused on enviro issues for 2 or 3 decades knows that they vanished from the public discussion in the 80s and were displaced by this regime of blaming ALL of them on GW. If a sea slug or tree species is endangered, nobody cares to research or report it if it can't be claimed that it's primary problem is GW..

No sign of coverage on species pressure or habitat reduction if the words GW or CC don't appear.

Hell -- just look at the listings in the USMB Environment forum for evidence that the "movement" has sucked the air out of conservation and environmentalism. Ive even seen post reports that moderation gets from "warmers" complaining that some OTHER enviro topic needs to be moved because "it's not environment".. Simply because it's not about GW.

It's made this whole FORUM -- a single issue game..
Mr. Flacaltenn, then you approve of the orange clown deregulating the laws concerning the mountaintop removal mining. And the deregulation of smokestack pollutant levels. Then you dare claim to be a Conservatonist? Come on, you are just another shill for the 1%, and you give not a damn about the health of our children and grandchildren.

Where did I claim I was in favor of deregulating ALL of that? And where did you get the idea that coal mining was gonna be "unregulated"?? If you'd stop panicking about the El Loco Cheeto Grande for a moment, we might be able to chat about smokestack pollutants and how NONE of the current standards will likely be anything but IMPROVED..

By the simple process of restoring science and DECLASSIFYING CO2 as a "pollutant"...



Yeah...yeah.....but.....but......water vapor!!!!


Someone might BREATE somea' dat!!!!!!
 
Well if Earth day, green energy, and conservation is a big left wing plot, what is the right wing viewpoint? Endless pollution, drilling, strip mining, deforestation, destroying ecosystems, and killing off entire species is all perfectly fine as long as there is a profit to be made?

Thank you. Your post provides the perfect example of the simplicity of leftist thought, the inability to understand subtlety and nuance. If someone questions the societal cost of solar panels, a leftist accuses them of wanting to destroy every forest, if they question the ideas of a black person, then they are racist.
OK, cocksuck. let us discuss the societal cost of solar panels. First, they are now the cheapest form of electrical generation. Second, when in use, the produce nothing but electricity. No smoke, no chemicals, and harm nothing at all. Third, they are scalable, you can use them in 1 kw applications, and also use them in multi megawatt applications.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

As the industry grows, so does concern over the environmental impact.
By Christina Nunez, National Geographic

Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

A new ranking of 37 solar manufacturers, the Solar Scorecard, shows that some companies are doing better than others. Chinese manufacturer Trina scored best, followed by California-based SunPower.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

Yes, there is some pollution from the manufacturing of Solar cells. But that can be regulated. And, compared to the pollution created by the manufacture of parts and construction of a coal fired or gas generator, that pollution is pretty minor.
 
Anybody who has been focused on enviro issues for 2 or 3 decades knows that they vanished from the public discussion in the 80s and were displaced by this regime of blaming ALL of them on GW.

If that's true, I'm sure you can name some of those issues.

The only issue I can think of that's faded is overpopulation, but that's entirely because conservative PC hysteria has defined it as a forbidden topic. Bring it up, and a mob of conservative PC-enforcers will accuse you of being a Stalinist who is planning a third world genocide.

It's made this whole FORUM -- a single issue game.

Your side makes that SOP, yes. No matter what the environmental or energy topic is, a mob of conservatives here immediately begins trolling it to death, screaming about CO2 and cow farts and Al Gore.
 
Well if Earth day, green energy, and conservation is a big left wing plot, what is the right wing viewpoint? Endless pollution, drilling, strip mining, deforestation, destroying ecosystems, and killing off entire species is all perfectly fine as long as there is a profit to be made?

Thank you. Your post provides the perfect example of the simplicity of leftist thought, the inability to understand subtlety and nuance. If someone questions the societal cost of solar panels, a leftist accuses them of wanting to destroy every forest, if they question the ideas of a black person, then they are racist.
OK, cocksuck. let us discuss the societal cost of solar panels. First, they are now the cheapest form of electrical generation. Second, when in use, the produce nothing but electricity. No smoke, no chemicals, and harm nothing at all. Third, they are scalable, you can use them in 1 kw applications, and also use them in multi megawatt applications.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

As the industry grows, so does concern over the environmental impact.
By Christina Nunez, National Geographic

Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

A new ranking of 37 solar manufacturers, the Solar Scorecard, shows that some companies are doing better than others. Chinese manufacturer Trina scored best, followed by California-based SunPower.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

Yes, there is some pollution from the manufacturing of Solar cells. But that can be regulated. And, compared to the pollution created by the manufacture of parts and construction of a coal fired or gas generator, that pollution is pretty minor.

I wasn't really looking for a discussion on the viability of solar panels, but as a typical liberal, you missed the point of my post.

However, since you brought it up, please provide the links to support your claim that it is the cheapest form of electricity. And make sure your links show the real cost, not the subsidized cost to the property owner. Also, how much did it cost you to have them installed on your house and are you happy with them? And don't you dare tell me you don't have them, why wouldn't you since they are so green and cheap. Why that would be downright hypocritical!
 
Well if Earth day, green energy, and conservation is a big left wing plot, what is the right wing viewpoint? Endless pollution, drilling, strip mining, deforestation, destroying ecosystems, and killing off entire species is all perfectly fine as long as there is a profit to be made?

Thank you. Your post provides the perfect example of the simplicity of leftist thought, the inability to understand subtlety and nuance. If someone questions the societal cost of solar panels, a leftist accuses them of wanting to destroy every forest, if they question the ideas of a black person, then they are racist.
It is really difficult to take the right seriously when it comes to questions of the environment. You want clean water, but you want to place oil pipelines over our aquifers and push fracking. You want clean air, but you want more coal fired electrical plants. You care about delicate ecosystems, but you promote drill drill drill even after disasters like Deepwater Horizon. You want healthy forests, but want to clearcut every forest out of existence. You promote responsibility, but apologized to BP for Obama making them take responsibility for their oil spills. You want accountability, but want to do away with the EPA and just let corporations freely pollute the air, land, and water. You want to do away with "job killing, unnecessary" regulations - the kind of regulations that keep businesses from polluting. I guess a return to the days where you could light rivers on fire and die from smog are just a wonderful idea to the right.

It isn't "questioning the ideas" of a black person that makes a racist. Caricaturing them as a loin clothed savages with spear in hand, bone in nose, etc. is racist and demeaning. Depicting them as apes is racist and demeaning. Calling them ******* and groids is racist and demeaning.

I guess you right wingers are just too "nuanced" and "subtle".
 
Well if Earth day, green energy, and conservation is a big left wing plot, what is the right wing viewpoint? Endless pollution, drilling, strip mining, deforestation, destroying ecosystems, and killing off entire species is all perfectly fine as long as there is a profit to be made?

Thank you. Your post provides the perfect example of the simplicity of leftist thought, the inability to understand subtlety and nuance. If someone questions the societal cost of solar panels, a leftist accuses them of wanting to destroy every forest, if they question the ideas of a black person, then they are racist.
It is really difficult to take the right seriously when it comes to questions of the environment. You want clean water, but you want to place oil pipelines over our aquifers and push fracking. You want clean air, but you want more coal fired electrical plants. You care about delicate ecosystems, but you promote drill drill drill even after disasters like Deepwater Horizon. You want healthy forests, but want to clearcut every forest out of existence. You promote responsibility, but apologized to BP for Obama making them take responsibility for their oil spills. You want accountability, but want to do away with the EPA and just let corporations freely pollute the air, land, and water. You want to do away with "job killing, unnecessary" regulations - the kind of regulations that keep businesses from polluting. I guess a return to the days where you could light rivers on fire and die from smog are just a wonderful idea to the right.

It isn't "questioning the ideas" of a black person that makes a racist. Caricaturing them as a loin clothed savages with spear in hand, bone in nose, etc. is racist and demeaning. Depicting them as apes is racist and demeaning. Calling them ******* and groids is racist and demeaning.

I guess you right wingers are just too "nuanced" and "subtle".

Please provide a single instance where I, as conservative, have suggested clear cutting every forest out of existence or eliminating the EPA. Once again, as a liberal you can't understand that there exist a middle ground, nuance, subtlety. It's possible to produce oil and have clean water, it's possible to burn coal and have clean air. To be fair, many rightwingers are just as over zealous as you on some issues. I don't suspect you want people around the country to freeze to death in the dark, do you? Of course you don't. But if we eliminated the use of all fossil fuels that is what would happen. We can't convert our entire power grid to renewable energy without SUBSTANIAL cost and time, it will cost trillions and take decades. So in the meantime, perhaps the left could dial back the scare tactics of eminent Global catastrophe. Just think, then you won't have to keep changing how you refer to these issues. Is it Global Warming, is it climate change (like that's never happened, more like it always is happening).
 
Well if Earth day, green energy, and conservation is a big left wing plot, what is the right wing viewpoint? Endless pollution, drilling, strip mining, deforestation, destroying ecosystems, and killing off entire species is all perfectly fine as long as there is a profit to be made?

Thank you. Your post provides the perfect example of the simplicity of leftist thought, the inability to understand subtlety and nuance. If someone questions the societal cost of solar panels, a leftist accuses them of wanting to destroy every forest, if they question the ideas of a black person, then they are racist.
OK, cocksuck. let us discuss the societal cost of solar panels. First, they are now the cheapest form of electrical generation. Second, when in use, the produce nothing but electricity. No smoke, no chemicals, and harm nothing at all. Third, they are scalable, you can use them in 1 kw applications, and also use them in multi megawatt applications.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

As the industry grows, so does concern over the environmental impact.
By Christina Nunez, National Geographic

Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

A new ranking of 37 solar manufacturers, the Solar Scorecard, shows that some companies are doing better than others. Chinese manufacturer Trina scored best, followed by California-based SunPower.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

Yes, there is some pollution from the manufacturing of Solar cells. But that can be regulated. And, compared to the pollution created by the manufacture of parts and construction of a coal fired or gas generator, that pollution is pretty minor.

I wasn't really looking for a discussion on the viability of solar panels, but as a typical liberal, you missed the point of my post.

However, since you brought it up, please provide the links to support your claim that it is the cheapest form of electricity. And make sure your links show the real cost, not the subsidized cost to the property owner. Also, how much did it cost you to have them installed on your house and are you happy with them? And don't you dare tell me you don't have them, why wouldn't you since they are so green and cheap. Why that would be downright hypocritical!
LOL My house has a very small south facing roof, in front of which are two very large trees. Besides, the cost I am talking about is in the utility sized projects.

source for new electric power
Between 2015 and 2021, China is expected to install 40% of all worldwide wind energy and 36% of all solar

While investments in renewable energy slumped last year, a big drop in unsubsidized costs for new wind and solar power installations indicated that they remain popular energy alternatives.

Last year, the average "levelized cost" or total cost of generating power from solar worldwide dropped 17% percent, onshore wind costs dropped 18% and offshore wind turbine power costs fell 28%, according to a new report from the United Nations and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

Well, after the dramatic cost reductions of the past few years, unsubsidized wind and solar can provide the lowest cost new electrical power in an increasing number of countries, even in the developing world -- sometimes by a factor of two," Michael Liebreich, chairman of the Advisory Board at BNEF, said in the report.

The average capital cost for solar power projects of new construction in 2016 was 13% lower than in 2015, while for onshore wind the drop was 11.5% and for offshore wind, 10%.
screen-shot-2017-04-17-at-2.10.22-pm-100718443-orig.jpg


Unsubsidized wind and solar now the cheapest source for new electric power
 
Well if Earth day, green energy, and conservation is a big left wing plot, what is the right wing viewpoint? Endless pollution, drilling, strip mining, deforestation, destroying ecosystems, and killing off entire species is all perfectly fine as long as there is a profit to be made?

Thank you. Your post provides the perfect example of the simplicity of leftist thought, the inability to understand subtlety and nuance. If someone questions the societal cost of solar panels, a leftist accuses them of wanting to destroy every forest, if they question the ideas of a black person, then they are racist.
It is really difficult to take the right seriously when it comes to questions of the environment. You want clean water, but you want to place oil pipelines over our aquifers and push fracking. You want clean air, but you want more coal fired electrical plants. You care about delicate ecosystems, but you promote drill drill drill even after disasters like Deepwater Horizon. You want healthy forests, but want to clearcut every forest out of existence. You promote responsibility, but apologized to BP for Obama making them take responsibility for their oil spills. You want accountability, but want to do away with the EPA and just let corporations freely pollute the air, land, and water. You want to do away with "job killing, unnecessary" regulations - the kind of regulations that keep businesses from polluting. I guess a return to the days where you could light rivers on fire and die from smog are just a wonderful idea to the right.

It isn't "questioning the ideas" of a black person that makes a racist. Caricaturing them as a loin clothed savages with spear in hand, bone in nose, etc. is racist and demeaning. Depicting them as apes is racist and demeaning. Calling them ******* and groids is racist and demeaning.

I guess you right wingers are just too "nuanced" and "subtle".

Please provide a single instance where I, as conservative, have suggested clear cutting every forest out of existence or eliminating the EPA. Once again, as a liberal you can't understand that there exist a middle ground, nuance, subtlety. It's possible to produce oil and have clean water, it's possible to burn coal and have clean air. To be fair, many rightwingers are just as over zealous as you on some issues. I don't suspect you want people around the country to freeze to death in the dark, do you? Of course you don't. But if we eliminated the use of all fossil fuels that is what would happen. We can't convert our entire power grid to renewable energy without SUBSTANIAL cost and time, it will cost trillions and take decades. So in the meantime, perhaps the left could dial back the scare tactics of eminent Global catastrophe. Just think, then you won't have to keep changing how you refer to these issues. Is it Global Warming, is it climate change (like that's never happened, more like it always is happening).
Did you not support this admin? Because they would do all those things if it would make them a buck, and they thought they could get away with it. They have already relaxed the rules on water pollution from mountain top mining.
 
Well if Earth day, green energy, and conservation is a big left wing plot, what is the right wing viewpoint? Endless pollution, drilling, strip mining, deforestation, destroying ecosystems, and killing off entire species is all perfectly fine as long as there is a profit to be made?

Thank you. Your post provides the perfect example of the simplicity of leftist thought, the inability to understand subtlety and nuance. If someone questions the societal cost of solar panels, a leftist accuses them of wanting to destroy every forest, if they question the ideas of a black person, then they are racist.
OK, cocksuck. let us discuss the societal cost of solar panels. First, they are now the cheapest form of electrical generation. Second, when in use, the produce nothing but electricity. No smoke, no chemicals, and harm nothing at all. Third, they are scalable, you can use them in 1 kw applications, and also use them in multi megawatt applications.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

As the industry grows, so does concern over the environmental impact.
By Christina Nunez, National Geographic

Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

A new ranking of 37 solar manufacturers, the Solar Scorecard, shows that some companies are doing better than others. Chinese manufacturer Trina scored best, followed by California-based SunPower.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

Yes, there is some pollution from the manufacturing of Solar cells. But that can be regulated. And, compared to the pollution created by the manufacture of parts and construction of a coal fired or gas generator, that pollution is pretty minor.

I wasn't really looking for a discussion on the viability of solar panels, but as a typical liberal, you missed the point of my post.

However, since you brought it up, please provide the links to support your claim that it is the cheapest form of electricity. And make sure your links show the real cost, not the subsidized cost to the property owner. Also, how much did it cost you to have them installed on your house and are you happy with them? And don't you dare tell me you don't have them, why wouldn't you since they are so green and cheap. Why that would be downright hypocritical!
LOL My house has a very small south facing roof, in front of which are two very large trees. Besides, the cost I am talking about is in the utility sized projects.

source for new electric power
Between 2015 and 2021, China is expected to install 40% of all worldwide wind energy and 36% of all solar

While investments in renewable energy slumped last year, a big drop in unsubsidized costs for new wind and solar power installations indicated that they remain popular energy alternatives.

Last year, the average "levelized cost" or total cost of generating power from solar worldwide dropped 17% percent, onshore wind costs dropped 18% and offshore wind turbine power costs fell 28%, according to a new report from the United Nations and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

Well, after the dramatic cost reductions of the past few years, unsubsidized wind and solar can provide the lowest cost new electrical power in an increasing number of countries, even in the developing world -- sometimes by a factor of two," Michael Liebreich, chairman of the Advisory Board at BNEF, said in the report.

The average capital cost for solar power projects of new construction in 2016 was 13% lower than in 2015, while for onshore wind the drop was 11.5% and for offshore wind, 10%.
screen-shot-2017-04-17-at-2.10.22-pm-100718443-orig.jpg


Unsubsidized wind and solar now the cheapest source for new electric power
What a dilemma, cut down 2 trees or use carbon fuel. You're a phony!
 
Well if Earth day, green energy, and conservation is a big left wing plot, what is the right wing viewpoint? Endless pollution, drilling, strip mining, deforestation, destroying ecosystems, and killing off entire species is all perfectly fine as long as there is a profit to be made?

Thank you. Your post provides the perfect example of the simplicity of leftist thought, the inability to understand subtlety and nuance. If someone questions the societal cost of solar panels, a leftist accuses them of wanting to destroy every forest, if they question the ideas of a black person, then they are racist.
OK, cocksuck. let us discuss the societal cost of solar panels. First, they are now the cheapest form of electrical generation. Second, when in use, the produce nothing but electricity. No smoke, no chemicals, and harm nothing at all. Third, they are scalable, you can use them in 1 kw applications, and also use them in multi megawatt applications.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

As the industry grows, so does concern over the environmental impact.
By Christina Nunez, National Geographic

Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

A new ranking of 37 solar manufacturers, the Solar Scorecard, shows that some companies are doing better than others. Chinese manufacturer Trina scored best, followed by California-based SunPower.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

Yes, there is some pollution from the manufacturing of Solar cells. But that can be regulated. And, compared to the pollution created by the manufacture of parts and construction of a coal fired or gas generator, that pollution is pretty minor.

I wasn't really looking for a discussion on the viability of solar panels, but as a typical liberal, you missed the point of my post.

However, since you brought it up, please provide the links to support your claim that it is the cheapest form of electricity. And make sure your links show the real cost, not the subsidized cost to the property owner. Also, how much did it cost you to have them installed on your house and are you happy with them? And don't you dare tell me you don't have them, why wouldn't you since they are so green and cheap. Why that would be downright hypocritical!
LOL My house has a very small south facing roof, in front of which are two very large trees. Besides, the cost I am talking about is in the utility sized projects.

source for new electric power
Between 2015 and 2021, China is expected to install 40% of all worldwide wind energy and 36% of all solar

While investments in renewable energy slumped last year, a big drop in unsubsidized costs for new wind and solar power installations indicated that they remain popular energy alternatives.

Last year, the average "levelized cost" or total cost of generating power from solar worldwide dropped 17% percent, onshore wind costs dropped 18% and offshore wind turbine power costs fell 28%, according to a new report from the United Nations and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

Well, after the dramatic cost reductions of the past few years, unsubsidized wind and solar can provide the lowest cost new electrical power in an increasing number of countries, even in the developing world -- sometimes by a factor of two," Michael Liebreich, chairman of the Advisory Board at BNEF, said in the report.

The average capital cost for solar power projects of new construction in 2016 was 13% lower than in 2015, while for onshore wind the drop was 11.5% and for offshore wind, 10%.
screen-shot-2017-04-17-at-2.10.22-pm-100718443-orig.jpg


Unsubsidized wind and solar now the cheapest source for new electric power
What a dilemma, cut down 2 trees or use carbon fuel. You're a phony!
And there you go with cutting down trees. You righties just can't help yourselves. See a tree, you want to cut it down.
 
Well if Earth day, green energy, and conservation is a big left wing plot, what is the right wing viewpoint? Endless pollution, drilling, strip mining, deforestation, destroying ecosystems, and killing off entire species is all perfectly fine as long as there is a profit to be made?

Thank you. Your post provides the perfect example of the simplicity of leftist thought, the inability to understand subtlety and nuance. If someone questions the societal cost of solar panels, a leftist accuses them of wanting to destroy every forest, if they question the ideas of a black person, then they are racist.
OK, cocksuck. let us discuss the societal cost of solar panels. First, they are now the cheapest form of electrical generation. Second, when in use, the produce nothing but electricity. No smoke, no chemicals, and harm nothing at all. Third, they are scalable, you can use them in 1 kw applications, and also use them in multi megawatt applications.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

As the industry grows, so does concern over the environmental impact.
By Christina Nunez, National Geographic

Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

A new ranking of 37 solar manufacturers, the Solar Scorecard, shows that some companies are doing better than others. Chinese manufacturer Trina scored best, followed by California-based SunPower.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

Yes, there is some pollution from the manufacturing of Solar cells. But that can be regulated. And, compared to the pollution created by the manufacture of parts and construction of a coal fired or gas generator, that pollution is pretty minor.

I wasn't really looking for a discussion on the viability of solar panels, but as a typical liberal, you missed the point of my post.

However, since you brought it up, please provide the links to support your claim that it is the cheapest form of electricity. And make sure your links show the real cost, not the subsidized cost to the property owner. Also, how much did it cost you to have them installed on your house and are you happy with them? And don't you dare tell me you don't have them, why wouldn't you since they are so green and cheap. Why that would be downright hypocritical!
LOL My house has a very small south facing roof, in front of which are two very large trees. Besides, the cost I am talking about is in the utility sized projects.

source for new electric power
Between 2015 and 2021, China is expected to install 40% of all worldwide wind energy and 36% of all solar

While investments in renewable energy slumped last year, a big drop in unsubsidized costs for new wind and solar power installations indicated that they remain popular energy alternatives.

Last year, the average "levelized cost" or total cost of generating power from solar worldwide dropped 17% percent, onshore wind costs dropped 18% and offshore wind turbine power costs fell 28%, according to a new report from the United Nations and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

Well, after the dramatic cost reductions of the past few years, unsubsidized wind and solar can provide the lowest cost new electrical power in an increasing number of countries, even in the developing world -- sometimes by a factor of two," Michael Liebreich, chairman of the Advisory Board at BNEF, said in the report.

The average capital cost for solar power projects of new construction in 2016 was 13% lower than in 2015, while for onshore wind the drop was 11.5% and for offshore wind, 10%.
screen-shot-2017-04-17-at-2.10.22-pm-100718443-orig.jpg


Unsubsidized wind and solar now the cheapest source for new electric power
What a dilemma, cut down 2 trees or use carbon fuel. You're a phony!
And just what was that supposed to mean, Moron.
 
And there you go with cutting down trees. You righties just can't help yourselves. See a tree, you want to cut it down.

Better check your facts...look into what Germany's left is doing to virgin forests in the name of green sustainability...look at how much American biomass is being shipped to europe...I am afraid that it is you people who are decimating trees...
 
Please provide an image, for example, of a well known right winger holding a poster or sign that says "DEFORESTATION FOR ALL!! CELEBRATE DEFORESTATION!"

Fucking dumbass.


Waiting for him to dig deep into his scholarship and post "Oh,yeah??? Sez you!!!"
I get so tired of the arena of ideas being clogged full of people who don't understand the most basic tenets of debate engagement, who don't understand the language, and who have exactly ZERO concept of history.

It's so overhelming.
You have just summed up how the left intends to win.. Dumb our education down so that you do no realize what rights you are loosing.. The drones will the recite what they are told too.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top