pipbarber wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 6:16 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ittleproud
David Littlebrain is a top shelf moron. But reading through another article about the idiotic coalition and climate change, it really brings home the fact that these people, in their heart of hearts, just don't believe the science is real. They think of climate change as a political issue, an ideological one, that's what it is to them...and i sometimes wonder if that's not also the case with the ALP.
I laugh at the state of politics in the US, but really we are just as terrible when it comes to ecological protection and climate change. The nationals are ecocidal psychopaths. It's so despairing.
Now I can indeed understand this;
While the development over the weekend was welcomed by a number of groups, some in the community have continued to oppose offshore windfarms due to potential environmental, economic and social impacts.
But I also understand this, given these same standards they are using to oppose the wind farm, not a single coal fired power station would have been built. The environmental damage from coal fired power stations is enormous, just building them is a huge impact, then the mining of the coal, environmental vandalism is what it is, then mowing down forests to build railways and transport systems, electrical grids etc. I mean these people are complaining about roads to move wind turbines to the coast to be built.
We can compare the current and future cost of wind farms and other green power projects to the past and future cost of coal fired power stations and other fossil fuel methods of making energy and decide which is best. Lets see, continued unfettered use of fossil fuels, future cost? Possible death of all humankind, collapse of ecosystems worldwide, the planet starts over with evolution of new species. The future cost of renewables? Well, I don't think that while there is some environmental damage and harm caused by the construction of renewable power generation systems, I mean everything we build does some damage, somehow they compare to the end result of not changing to renewables.
The other question is, what are they proposing as the alternative? As far as I can tell the alternative is, do nothing, and that's not an alternative that results in us surviving in the way we are at the moment. In the end survival will determine what we do, the collapse of society due to environmental refugees and possibly wars will eventually end and whatever is left of humans will have to start again, is that the alternative?