Green Oppression

[Manonthestreet]

In the fight to stop climate change, many people paint carbon-neutral energy as the solution to saving the planet. But what happens when “green” energy projects threaten the existence of people, animals, and entire ecosystems living on it? Is “green” energy really the solution when it comes at such a cost? As Brazil invests heavily in hydroelectric energy projects in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while still growing its economy, the country’s indigenous movement is fighting to answer this very question.
Indigenous women stand up to displacement by Brazil’s Belo Monte dam Never get between a greenie and their cash......

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate science is all about one thing.........has always been about one thing: bringing about renewable energy at costs that are staggering in many, many ways such as what the OP cites. Not to mention it makes poor people poorer........mounds of evidence to support it ( google Germany/renewable energy/prices ). It costs jobs.......lots of them. It is a scam designed to wreck the capitalistic system. Only a bozo doesn't recognize it.

This is right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, "Rules for Radicals"........control the energy and you control the people.

Some in the AGW crowd in here are just dumb as a stump naïve. Others know exactly what BS they are peddling in here and why they are peddling it.


Fortunately for the rest of us, 20 years of this crap has netted them little or nothing!!

 

[Moonglow]

People in this country were displaced for hydroelectric production and flood control, yet we survived...

 

[Manonthestreet]

Dont want to hear another lib bleat about poor indigenous peoples

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, if it ain't totally destroying the environment for fossil fuels, it ain't worth doing. LOL. Never heard you 'Conservatives' scream about the destruction of the environment involved in mining the tar sands.

This crying, mewling, and puking over non-polluting energy just as well cease. It impresses no one, especially the utilities that are putting up the big wind turbines, and installing solar by the gigawatt.

 

[skookerasbil]

Conservatives are just naturally better able to contemplate cost/benefit stuff. Its a thought processing thing......big difference between the thinking of some people vs others.

Going green worldwide is simply not doable.......anybody who makes it out, like the alarmists do, to be a cakewalk are doing the thinking thing wrong.

They tried going full-on green in Germany and the bozo government almost got tossed out on its ass......due to mega-expensive electricity of course. So they are back to coal........because simply......it is what it is. Everything in life ALWAYS comes down to 2 things only: costs and politics. Conservatives don't get caught up in spending a lot of time thinking in uber-idealistic terms = waste of time.

 

[Crick]

In the fight to stop climate change, many people paint carbon-neutral energy as the solution to saving the planet. But what happens when “green” energy projects threaten the existence of people, animals, and entire ecosystems living on it? Is “green” energy really the solution when it comes at such a cost? As Brazil invests heavily in hydroelectric energy projects in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while still growing its economy, the country’s indigenous movement is fighting to answer this very question.
Indigenous women stand up to displacement by Brazil’s Belo Monte dam Never get between a greenie and their cash......

Old Rocks pegged this perfectly.

Hydroelectric projects were displacing people long before anyone had ever heard of global warming. And, of course, the unstated preposition that fossil fuel power will do less damage is a crock. If you want to have a rational conversation about the costs and values of different energy technologies, you need to be working from a common understanding of the facts. That CO2 emissions are warming the planet and threatening human well being for centuries to come is such a fact.

 

[Manonthestreet]

In the fight to stop climate change, many people paint carbon-neutral energy as the solution to saving the planet. But what happens when “green” energy projects threaten the existence of people, animals, and entire ecosystems living on it? Is “green” energy really the solution when it comes at such a cost? As Brazil invests heavily in hydroelectric energy projects in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while still growing its economy, the country’s indigenous movement is fighting to answer this very question.
Indigenous women stand up to displacement by Brazil’s Belo Monte dam Never get between a greenie and their cash......

Old Rocks pegged this perfectly.

Hydroelectric projects were displacing people long before anyone had ever heard of global warming. And, of course, the unstated preposition that fossil fuel power will do less damage is a crock. If you want to have a rational conversation about the costs and values of different energy technologies, you need to be working from a common understanding of the facts. That CO2 emissions are warming the planet and threatening human well being for centuries to come is such a fact.

It's not just righteous natives being displaced......think of all the critters my god....... Your argument breaks down to this is the way its always been done so be quiet......which is what you accuse "" deniers" of

 

[Crick]

My argument was a refutation of YOUR charge that people who accept AGW were irresponsibly expanding alternative energy technologies out of a lack of caring for people impacted by such projects. That you reject the value of providing energy without carbon emissions doesn't allow you to reach an accurate conclusion.

 

[Manonthestreet]

My argument was a refutation of YOUR charge that people who accept AGW were irresponsibly expanding alternative energy technologies out of a lack of caring for people impacted by such projects. That you reject the value of providing energy without carbon emissions doesn't allow you to reach an accurate conclusion.

Your argument was a mother earth and creatures be damned screed .....

 

[Crick]

And what was the motivation of people who built, say, the Hoover Dam?

 

[Crick]

I have to be honest here. I have a hard time accepting criticism of my caring for people and wildlife from anyone that favors fossil fuel power over alternative energy technologies. So much of a hard time, that I just don't believe a fucking word of it. I am absolutely certain that you NEVER complained about the impact of hydroelectric power before this. So, I'll be nice and just say PACK SAND.