Climate Change: Let's Have a Fruitful Discussion

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 86 discussions (1761 posts)
  1. profile image0
    savvydatingposted 20 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/16218719.jpg
    Is climate change a threat to our existence? If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization? What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change? How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics? Do you believe Al Gore? What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO? What do you think about solar panels and wind energy?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      No, except possibly that a nuclear war could result.  But the climate change will not end life, or humanity, on the planet.

      Biden's policies are foolish in the extreme as he doesn't care what damage they do.  Better to stay right where we are, warming the planet, than to subside into the muck he is creating.

      Al Gore, as well as IPCC and WHO, are all liars.  Their "predictions", based on "science" never seem to come true.

      Solar panels and wind energy are a great addition to our energy needs.  They are NOT the answer to our needs, though - at this time that remains at nuclear and fossil fuels.  What we desperately need is fusion.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        For those who do not know, Fusion power mimics the sun, and can provide all the energy humanity needs. This is an area that requires R&D. We’re not there yet. The WHO has made a few honest statements. I’ll address that another time.
        I disagree with you about solar panels & wind energy. If they were effective, we would have seen the results by now. 
        I’ll go into more detail later on if the subject seems to interest potential consumers here.
        Thanks, wilderness.

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          Correction: I agree that solar panels & wind energy are not the answer. I do not believe they are a great addition to our energy needs.

        2. Nathanville profile image89
          Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          Where you say:  “….about solar panels & wind energy. If they were effective, we would have seen the results by now.”

          If you look across the pond, at what’s happening in the EU and UK you will see the positive results of using solar panels and wind energy e.g. in the last 7 days 48.5% (almost half) of the electricity generated in the UK has come from wind power – see screen dump from the UK’s National Grid Live website below (and for better clarity, the enlargement of the critical figures below the main image)

          https://hubstatic.com/16230836_f1024.jpg

          https://hubstatic.com/16230837.jpg

          Transfers and Storage in the above chart is where for example over the last 7 days the UK has exported 8.6% of our electricity to France, and imported 3.5% from Norway (hydropower).

      2. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 20 months agoin reply to this

        I not so much keen on much of your comment EXCEPT that solar and biomass in of itself won't begin to approach the actual demand for energy, AND what we desperately need is nuclear fusion developed as the ideal energy source. Let's hope the technology is brought on board sooner rather than later.

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          We are in agreement somewhat. Hell has now frozen over.

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Hasn't it, indeed.....

        2. Nathanville profile image89
          Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          Research into developing controlled fusion inside fusion reactors has been ongoing since the 1940s, but the technology is still in its development phase.

          In February of this the previous ‘world record’ of producing nuclear fusion power was smashed when enough energy was generated to boil just 60 kettles, which doubles the previous world record back in 1997.  This is great news but sadly it won't help in our battle to lessen the effects of climate change.

          There's huge uncertainty about when fusion power will be ready for commercialisation. One estimate suggests maybe 20 years. Then fusion would need to scale up, which would mean a delay of perhaps another few decades.

          And here's the problem: the need for carbon-free energy is urgent - and the UK government has pledged that all electricity in the UK must be zero emissions by 2035. That means nuclear, renewables and energy storage.

          In other words "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century."

          As regards solar and biomass, as you correctly stated “solar and biomass in of itself won't begin to approach the actual demand for energy”; but along with other forms of Green and Renewable Energy, including wind, tide and wave power, and hydropower, and new technologies into energy storage e.g. green hydrogen etc., then they do play an important role in the ‘low-carbon green energy mix’.  You only have to look at the progress being made across Europe to appreciate that e.g. in the last 7 days 52.2% of the electricity generated in the UK came from Renewable Energy – see chart below:-

          https://hubstatic.com/16231093.jpg

      3. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

        I agree with widerness. But I'm to add that the laity understanding of climate changes in terms of science is poor or zero like that of Donald Trump!                                   Seriously, science predictions are like an assuption that need a verification. It'll take some decades for a clear cut answer. Critically, how many of us can still recalled Dalton Atomic Theory in our junior chemistry class? At the senior grade that's replaced with the Modern Atomic Theory. There many challenges like this one are in antiquity or history, for example, that the earth is flat and not circular.

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          The predictions of Ecologist, Paul Ehrlich, were the most absurd. But he had the ear of Americans, much like politicians who engage in planet fear mongering today.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
            Kathryn L Hillposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            ... and use it for nefarious purposes.

            https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/nefarious

      4. gmwilliams profile image83
        gmwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        +100000000000000.

    2. DrMark1961 profile image96
      DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, it is probably a real thing. It may even make parts of the earth uninhabitable for humans, although I doubt this, as humans will adapt. It will not affect a lot of other species and anyone that qoutes those fake numbers and dates that Al Gore and his ilk came up with is providing fuel to those that do not believe there are going to be changes.

      I have been a big fan of solar for almost 50 years but even I do not imagine that it is going to be enough. As wilderness points out, fusion would be the answer to a lot of our problems.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image73
        Ken Burgessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        In regards to Solar Energy, what works great is Solar Panels or a Solar Roof put on a home, large enough to meet the demands of daily use, with enough left over going to battery packs, which can supply the needs of the home during the night.

        Most homes of sufficient size can maintain themselves "grid free" with such a system in place, negating the need of outside energy sources.

        Larger systems, meant to sustain communities can also be created, an example of this is what Tesla has done for a community in Australia that could not meet its energy demands (some links):

        https://evannex.com/blogs/news/tesla-so … rgy-crisis

        https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-powerwa … owth-2020/

        Whether a home system, or a neighborhood system, these can supply the energy needs for some 12-25 years. As technology improves, the lifespan and durability of these systems improves as well.

        In regards to Climate Change

        This is a critical element moving forward for the WB, IMF, BIS control of the international monetary system.

        This is how people are going to be tracked, controlled, taxed, etc.

        The steady focus on Climate Change, Carbon Emissions etc. is so that the populace has been groomed to accept Carbon Tax.

        Once we have gone to digital wallets (this is set to occur in America in June/July of the coming year)... they can then begin tracking all we purchase, all we consume, and eventually will assign a Carbon Tax to it:

        https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fednow-p … 14075.html

        https://www.reuters.com/business/financ … 021-06-01/

        https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ … nts-Report

        This Carbon Tax will become a new Credit Score, akin to China's Social Score.  What you are allowed to do, or not allowed to do, will be determined more and more by your Digital Wallet, Carbon Tax and Social Score.  These names of course may be varied over time.

        https://www.euractiv.com/section/econom … -in-davos/

        For an idea of what this will be like, one only has to look to China and its non-cash identity based system to get a glimpse of how it will work... and how a person can be totally de-personed if they do not conform.

        https://hubpages.com/politics/How-China … our-future

        But all the concerns over Climate Change are so much drama, it is not a real threat to humanity.  Humanity's biggest threat is its pollution.

        Humans are going to die off from plastic poisoning before climate change ever has a chance to claim us.  They don't talk at all about that catastrophe in the making, but the food chains in the oceans are going to fail because of it, the level of plastics in our bloodstreams is a significant cause of disease and death, and not just in humans.

        https://myethicalchoice.com/en/journal/ … an-health/


        https://hubstatic.com/16219351_f1024.jpg

        This is a small River

        https://hubstatic.com/16219358.jpg

        This was taken in an Ocean port

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          Hmmm. I’ll read your articles and comment at a later date.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          I would disagree, quite heavily, that roof top solar cells can not only take the home grid free, but free of other energy sources as well.

          I have twice had solar people look at my home.  Neither one could give me enough roof top cells to take me off the grid, and that was only for daytime.  It's not that my home is sheltered from the sun or too far north (I'm south of the 45th parallel); it's that I'm total electric.  No gas range, no gas hot water, no gas heat and no gas dryer.  No oil, either.
          ALL energy coming into the house is electric, and that even extends to gardening/lawn equipment as well as a plug in hybrid that hasn't had gasoline added since March.

          So I really doubt that "most" homes can, using roof top solar cells and even adding some in a small yard, become energy independent.  Not even with a giant, and expensive, battery bank.  A few, located in just the right areas and without a large family, probably.  Not much else.

          1. DrMark1961 profile image96
            DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            They work here, as they do in many parts of the world. (I know several farmers that want the grid but have never been connected since they are too far from the main line, similar to the US back before the 1930s.)The big difference is we have no heating needs like you do up in your part of the world, we do not run hot water all over the house like those in the US, Canada, and parts of Europe, nor do people here have dryers or many other electric appliances.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

              "The big difference is we have no heating needs like you do up in your part of the world, we do not run hot water all over the house like those in the US, Canada, and parts of Europe, nor do people here have dryers or many other electric appliances."

              And there you go.  Between not needing heat and not using hot water or other appliances it would about make the difference.  Do you have a high usage of air conditioning, or is your area pretty temperate most of the time?  Where I am varies from -30 degrees C to 45, which means goodly amounts of both AC and heat.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                I do not know anyone in my area that has AC (I only use it in my truck) but temps here are in the 20s (centigrade) almost year round. So no heating and not much cooling. (Mosquitoes are an issue year round though.)

                I could not imagine life in an area like Arizona or southern Florida without AC. I did not realize that Boise even reached those temperatures.

            2. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

              Well, if this administration keeps doing what it is doing, no one here will be able to afford dryers or electric appliances…
              except those who forced the green agenda. They will continue to live like Al Gore & friends.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                The newly elected president here is a Biden follower and also will do his best to make sure that no one is able to afford dryers or electric appliances. After the election he stated that his plan when he takes office in January is to start 13 new ministries, all of which will be people who will live like Al Gore and his friends.

                1. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  The whole thing is depressing and so unnecessary. Before Covid, the U.S. was humming along beautifully. Furthermore, we were recovering quickly after the worst of the pandemic was over.
                  Biden changed all that. We were energy-independent. Now we're begging Venezuela for its (dirty) oil.

                  Had Biden done nothing, the U.S. would be even wealthier today; we would have been on our way to a full recovery (except in the area of education) which the Democrats own, and he could have taken the credit for all the achievements of the previous administration.

                  Instead, he decided to return to the policies of Obama and put them on steroids. Not good for us. Not good for the world.

                  1. John Sebastian 1962 profile image80
                    John Sebastian 1962posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                    "Before Covid, the U.S. was humming along beautifully." I agree. Perhaps more specifically, "Before the ridiculous, dogmatic, left-saturated leadership response to COVID, the U.S. was humming along beautifully."

          2. Ken Burgess profile image73
            Ken Burgessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            When was your evaluation done and what size were they suggesting?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

              One around 6-8 years ago, one this year.  Not sure of the size, but they were going to cover half the roof and build a "carport" for my RV for additional roof space.  Still not enough.

              I gave up completely, though, when I found out that the tax credits they are touting are non-refundable.  Only rich people get to use the tax base to install solar - the rest of us have to pay it all ourselves.

        3. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          I read the article about plastic. It struck me as rather alarmist. That being said, I do recycle and do not use plastic straws, primarily because I prefer to drink beverages without them. The pic is alarming, however it looks as though the plastic could be scooped up quite easily if someone would take the time to do it.
          Also, in poor nations, like the one you show here, people do not have proper waste containers or places to dump garbage.
          You do not see rivers like that in the U.S. But, shame on anyone here who just throws crap on the ground or in any mass of water. Here, we do not have any excuse for such careless and irresponsible behavior.

      2. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        Dr. Mark, My feeling is that solar is useful for the type of people who can live off the grid, for the most part. The average American, living in cities, cannot.
        However, I may be wrong.

        Furthermore, solar panels are expensive. The best panels cost about $37,000. They’re only partially useful if one has a new, solid roof, and upgraded appliances. Even then, it can take years to pay them off ( which means families end up paying way more each month).
        And god forbid the panels are installed by some fly by night company that promises free energy from the government. People who get scammed by these companies always end up paying 2 to 3 times as much for their energy bill than they did before.

        That being said, solar panels can be placed on the ground as another option. They may be useful for some, as they have been for you.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image96
          DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

          I was thinking mostly of suburbs and rural as ´people living in apartments have to rely on a grid. The systems are terribly expensive, and every so often a new article will coming out that will tell us that in 10 years solar will be affordable. That has been the case for about 50 years now, and I am still waiting for that 10 years to roll along.

          We do not have heating costs where I live but even here it is still too early to try to get away from oil.

        2. Nathanville profile image89
          Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          Wow, is that right, is that how much it costs in the USA to have solar panels installed on a roof in America?

          I had solar panels and wall battery installed in our home a year ago and it only cost me less than $6,000 for the solar panels, and a similar amount for the wall battery.

          Last winter the solar panels and wall battery reduced our demand for electricity from the national grid by 50%, and during the summer we were almost self-sufficient.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Yes. Solar panels are very expensive in the U.S.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image73
            Ken Burgessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Without the tax incentives, in America a Solar system that is sized large enough to offset 90% or more of electricity consumed in a home costs over $30k.

            Adding a battery to that system adds another $10k.

            You are looking at $40k ... with rebates and incentives $30k.

            Sounds like a bad deal, I know, but if you factor in the cost of electricity doubling in the near future, it will save a lot of money long term.

            1. Nathanville profile image89
              Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

              Wow, that is shocking. 

              That’s 2.5 times more than I paid (and I didn’t even get any government subsidies because they were scrapped in 2019, due to the falling prices of solar panels in the UK). 

              Yeah, when the solar panel industry was in its infancy in the UK, over 10 years ago, the sort of prices you have to pay now in the USA is comparable to how much it would have costed in the UK then.  But with the industry, infrastructure, supply chains now well established in the UK, and with mass production (economies of scale) the costs in real terms have fallen significantly in the UK over the past 10 years.

              The UK Government (Conservative) introduced government subsidies on solar panels in 2011, at a time when they were expensive (far too expensive for most people to afford).  But over the years the costs have fallen in real terms so that even without subsidies solar panels has become economically viable by 2016; so in 2019 the Government scrapped the subsidies, as solar panels are now affordable to the middle class families.

              Therefore, the price I paid is the full market price for purchase and installation; and I didn’t get any subsidies from the Government, but at that price it's an investment that is going to save me a small fortune on my electricity bill.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image73
                Ken Burgessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                I would like to think that would happen here in America.

                But there will likely be serious opposition to it, trying to delay it, just as there has been significant and ongoing efforts to slow the transition to EVs.

                Power companies have a lot of money.

                Oil companies have a lot of money.

                They fight at the state and federal level to have politicians slow or stop the transition to Solar Energy and EVs.

                They work to have new laws and regulations passed to make it illegal for people to install solar.

                Power Companies tried to have a Bill passed here in Florida that would have made it illegal to have a solar system on your property without the local Power Company's approval giving them control over the energy produced. 

                While campaigning to have this new law voted into reality during the election, they ran ads on radio, tv, and the internet saying it was PRO solar and would support the industry.

                It took great effort by true Solar enthusiasts and the small Solar Industry businesses in the State to get out their own ads and opinion pieces in local papers to inform people of the Bill's true intentions.

                It was almost passed, the people in Florida dodged a bullet, and with today's technology, systems such as Enphase Ensemble, you can power your home while disconnected from the grid, you control where the power goes (Battery or back to the Grid for credit), things that would not be possible if that law had passed.

                So while I would love to wait a couple of years and get it at a cheaper price to myself, I don't think we will see that collapse in prices this decade.  Maybe by 2030... not worth risking the wait to see, costs just as easily could go up,

                1. Nathanville profile image89
                  Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for the feedback.  Your detailed explanation does mark a number of stark differences between our two nations:-

                  Yeah, the British oil and gas companies also have a lot of money, especially with the huge profits they are currently making because of the extortionately high price of natural gas due to the world shortage caused by the Ukrainian war.

                  That’s why the UK Government introduced a 25% windfall tax on them this summer, and increased it to 35% in yesterday’s annual budget.

                  Yea, British Power companies have a lot of money, because of the high price of electricity due to the shortage of natural gas e.g. the companies capitalising in the energy crisis. 

                  Thus, in yesterday’s Annual Budget the UK Government slapped a 45% windfall tax on the Power companies, to claw back some of that money to compensate the Utility Companies and Consumers who are suffering from the high prices.

                  As you may or may not know, a windfall tax is a once off, short term tax that’s over and above the normal taxes that companies pay; and it’s only used in exceptional circumstances e.g. when an industry is making insanely high profits from a national crisis.

                  However, although the Power and Oil/Gas companies have a lot of money in the UK they don’t have the ‘power’ or political clout that they do in the USA.

                  In the UK the Power companies are at the ‘beg and call’ of the National Grid.  The British Energy Supply System is a complex system devised and set up by Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Prime Minister) in the late 1980s. 

                  Prior to the 1980s power supply to the home was a nationalised industry e.g. State owned (Government) and State run; which in politics is Socialism not Capitalism.  So as part of privatising everything in the 1980s the Conservative Government Privatised the Energy Sector.

                  The system Margaret Thatcher set up in the 1980s was:-

                  •    The National Grid (private company) at the heart of the system

                  •    The Power companies who generate the electricity (all private companies).

                  •    The Utility companies (all private companies) who compete with each other to sell the electricity that they get via the National Grid to the householders.

                  The Utility companies buy the electricity they need via the National Grid, and in turn the National Grid buy the required electricity from the power companies as and when required e.g. buying the cheapest electricity available first (wind power), and only resulting to requesting coal-fired power stations to be fired-up (the most expensive) as a last resort; hence less than 1% of our electricity in the UK comes from coal, and the last remaining coal-fired power station is due to close in 2024.

                  In the UK, unlike the USA, the British Oil and Gas Companies know that their days as fossil fuel companies are numbered, because of the British Government’s commitment to Renewable Energy and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.  Therefore, rather than fighting the Government the British Oil and Gas Companies are jumping on the ‘green’ bandwagon by diversifying into Renewable Energies e.g. by investing some of their profits into green projects.

                  For example SHELL Oil is installing electric charging points at all the petrol stations (gas stations) across the UK, and BP oil are investing in converting lampposts (streetlights) into EV charging points.  And SHELL Oil also investing in wind power e.g. by buying and paying for the installation of their own wind turbines.

                  As regards domestic solar panels, yes it’s great having control over where the power goes; on my system, not only can I dictate whether the surplus power from the roof goes to battery or to the Grid for credit, but I can also dictate if/when I buy power from the grid to recharge the battery e.g. in the UK electricity is plentiful and cheap in early hours of the morning (when there’s little demand) so that’s a good time to recharge wall batteries and EVs. 

                  Shell Oil subsidiary company (Limejump) trading 100% Renewable Energy with the National Grid:  https://youtu.be/Gd1Ub34T_gM

                2. peterstreep profile image79
                  peterstreepposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  In Spain, it was for a long time the same story. It was more expensive to have solar on your house, because of all the taxation, than to have ordinary electricity. And in some provinces simply forbidden.
                  This was all done through the influence of REPSOL, the Spanish oil company, on the government.

                  Today you can, but it is not promoted or made easy to generate solar energy in the city. (When you live in the countryside like me, and you have no other way to generate electricity, you were always allowed to have your own solar panels and batteries)

                  What's made easy is for big companies to make solar farms everywhere. They have given them more or less free reign. (and Europe is even on the brink of passing laws that make birds and nature more or less irrelevant in the discussion about where to place these farms)
                  So you have the same story over again. The energy market is given away to companies that will dominate the electricity prices.
                  The chance to control these prices by the government, which could be in handy during times of crisis is swindled. (In the Netherlands they regret, because of the Russian oil gas crisis, that they have privatized the electricity market. Now the government has to talk with 20+ companies to come to a price agreement...)
                  And of course, giving people the independency of electricity with their own solar on the roof should be avoided at all costs...

                  Hopefully, we will get a system like in Germany or the Netherlands where you can generate your own electricity through solar and if you generate more than you use you sell it to the grid, and if you need some you buy it from the grid. So you only need the panels and no batteries.
                  But I'm afraid this is a long way away...

                  But solar will never solve the energy problem and the climate crisis. As we still need diesel for trucks, ships, heavy machinery etc. And fuel for planes...Would be great to see planes on solar.....

                  In short, to make this place a better world I think we should buy products that need less energy to make and transport.
                  So, I think, one of the best things you can do is to buy local products. Food produced in your own province, products that are made in your own country.
                  And I think this should be promoted by law as well (shipment and import costs..The further away the higher the tax.)

                  1. Nathanville profile image89
                    Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                    You raise some interesting point:

                    Like the Netherlands, in the late 1980s the UK Conservative Government privatised the electricity market; but interestingly the current Conservative Government is in the process of re-nationalising the National Grid e.g. it will be re-nationalised in 2024.

                    As regards “trucks, ships, planes and heavy machinery etc.” including public transport (buses/coaches and trains, and taxis) and private vehicles (cars); the UK Government is tackling all these to make them ‘greener’ as part of the UK’s Governments legal commitment to meet CO2 ‘net zero’ emission by 2050:-

                    All new fossil fuel vehicles, trucks, coaches, buses cars and taxis etc., will be banned in the UK from 2030 (in 8 years).

                    In 2009 the Labour (Socialist) Government launched a large scale electrification of the railways, which when the Conservatives came to power the following year they continued to support; so far just under 50% of the rail network in the UK has been electrified.

                    However, in 2020 the UK ran its first ‘prototype’ green hydrogen train, and since then, although electrification of the railways is continuing (at a much slower pace) the UK Government is now committed to focusing on developing ‘green hydrogen’ trains as it’s a cheaper and potentially quicker option.  To the best of my knowledge, the UK is just one of three countries developing ‘green hydrogen’ trains e.g. China, Germany and the UK.

                    The UK's first Green Hydrogen train: https://youtu.be/geATz4pdCSg

                    In this respect the Government policy is to remove all diesel trains from our network by 2040.

                    In addition to all new fossil fuel road vehicle being banned in the UK by 2030, as a move away from using fossil fuel vehicles in the UK:-

                    •    All London black taxis are now 100% electric.

                    •    All buses in Bristol are now run on clean renewable energy made from domestic food waste and sewage.

                    Bristol busses using domestic food waste and sewage for power: https://youtu.be/QV4VEprPfos

                    •    Several cities across Britain have now converted all their buses to use ‘green hydrogen’, especially in Scotland where ‘green hydrogen’ technologies are being developed.

                    •    And in Scotland, between Scottish islands, the world’s first ferry service using ‘green hydrogen’ is now operational.

                    World's first hydrogen-powered seagoing ferries: https://youtu.be/jsbObSYqVao

                    •    And increasingly ‘heavy machinery’ in the UK is converting to electric power, including several ‘steel works’.

                    The only area in the UK that is struggling to transition away from fossil fuels is the aviation industry, although R&D (Research & Development) into electric planes is taking place, the research is in its infancy; hence currently the UK aviation industry is turning to offset their CO2 emissions by paying for trees to be planted; planting trees equivalent to the percentage amount the industry is required to offset their CO2 emissions, as set by the UK Government e.g. currently they only need to offset a small percentage of their emissions, but each year that gradually increases, until 2050 when the Government will set the offset to be 100%.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image73
                    Ken Burgessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                    An update on my efforts to purchase a Solar System for my home.

                    The cost is roughly 30k, financed over many years it will amount to $198 a month and cover about 85% of what I consume.

                    Interestingly enough, I had to downsize the system I was going to have installed that would have created 104% of the electricity I consume.

                    There are laws, regulations, which categorize an electrical system that creates more than 11.75 KW into a different class.

                    Creating a system like I am having put into my home, which allows for the solar system to continue to power the home even when the grid is down, and allows the ability to bypass the grid should I choose, is frowned upon.

                    The power companies do not want us to be able to produce 100% or more of our electricity needs and be capable of bypassing the grid, even during a power outage or emergency situation.

                    They want us to be tied to the grid, for our excess power to go back to them, for pennies on the dollar, rather than to a battery back-up system.

                    In order to avoid certain regulations that require additional permits and inspections, as well as additional coverage that would add hundreds of dollars to my home insurance bill, yearly, I choose to install a smaller system that I can upgrade at a later date.

                    Sadly, as the power companies in America become more threatened by homes creating their own power and not needing to be reliant on the grid, there is likely going to be a massive effort to ensure that solar systems be required to be part of the grid and be controlled by the power companies, either that, or like the state of California has proposed, excessively tax those who own such solar systems to make it prohibitively expensive.

      3. Nathanville profile image89
        Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        DrMark, where you say "The Dutch guy living in Spain was commenting about this the other day. They are clearing forest in Spain to put in solar collection areas. Spain is in Europe." I'd be interested in seeing the article you refer to, and if it's from reliable source then I apologise.  Certainly, I should have perhaps said in countries like the UK, where our forests are now protected, and where we are planting trees to increase the size of our woodlands and forests.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image96
          DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

          Peter describes what they are going through on the next page.

    3. abwilliams profile image65
      abwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Hi Savvy, I have been flippant when it comes to this subject in the past, no doubt. I get so provoked by the way children have been used to spread the message/spread the word! It angers me that, for decades now, many children, in many locations, have grown up in fear of the earth heating or cooling or sinking out from under them.
      Due to so much bogus information circulating, which was brought into the classroom to make damn sure that the climate alarmists got through to them early on!
      I am not going to change my tune, for the sake of this discussion, I am obviously in the minority here.
      While the climate change alarmist focus on what could happen one hundred years from now, I am more concerned about the here and now and about the many minds which have  been messed with.

      I am of the mindset that, as we've always done, we continue to look for new alternatives, all while utilizing the God-given natural resources we already have at our disposal! Why must we be all in on solar panels or all in on windmills, etc....Why must the baby get thrown out with the bathwater?

      Al Gore is a greedy, smug, opportunist, who saw an opportunity to get rich and has! He has been making doomsday predictions, again, for decades, while jet setting the world...his predictions never come true and then he gets to say....because we were aware and prevented it, blah, blah, blah.
      B.S.!!!

      1. Ken Burgess profile image73
        Ken Burgessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        That was the purpose, to groom younger generations to believe this so that they will accept (even fight for) a Carbon Tax system.

        1. abwilliams profile image65
          abwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          100%

      2. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        AB, I agree that it is not only useless, but morally wrong to “throw the baby out with the bath water.”
        We have plenty of time to find a green energy source that is cheaper than fossil fuels. China, India and Africa will never switch until that happens.

        We are not all going to die in 10 years if we don’t, but there will be thousands of deaths, most from cold deaths and lack of food if we force this current green energy agenda down the throats of Americans.
        If our GDP suffers, the rest of the world suffers, especially the poorer nations who rely on our wealth to supplement their food and water supply, not to mention their energy supply.

      3. peterstreep profile image79
        peterstreepposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        " all while utilizing the God-given natural resources we already have at our disposal!"
        So the earth and its resources are given to you/us?

        I think it's a huge philosophical mistake to think that humans are set apart from this world. There are no two parties. Humankind and the rest of the world... A ruling party, humans, and a subservient party (the world and its resources).
        You see us as owners of the world and having the right to do with this planet whatever we want. As God has given us this planet.

        But that's not so. We, humans, are part of the ecosystem. Everything we do has consequences. If you cut down a tree it has consequences.
        You can not simply take the resources of the world without consequences.
        But we did for years on end, and now we are starting to see, as little children, the consequences of our deeds.
        The planet is warming up. Haven't you noticed that every year more temperature records are being broken? Ask a farmer about his experiences in the field. He knows the consequences of changing seasons.
        There is more extreme weather, bird populations are going down because of the scarcity of habitat. (The tree you cut down).
        We are not talking about 100 years, we are talking about 20-30 years.
        You think it's scaremongering. No it's not. Do you think scientists are wrong? We are a long way past the question of if Climate Change is real. Scientists from all over the world, from all kinds of different backgrounds, come to the same conclusion. The Climate Crisis we are in is deadly serious. It's only the politicians and oil companies who don't want to take action as they are trained into thinking in economics and votes.
        If you ask : Is climate change a real threat for the world?
        Who do you believe AB Williams, scientists or politicians?

        1. abwilliams profile image65
          abwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          I get it Peter, it's your religion, I'll not convince you with anything that I might add and you really aren't interested in the least!

          I will say this, doomsday predictions come and go and the wallets of both politicians and scientists get fatter.

          1. peterstreep profile image79
            peterstreepposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Science is not a religion. You don't believe 1+1=2. It is a fact. And a fact the world is build on.
            A scientific  prediction is not a fashion or a believe. When science predicts something it is based upon measurement.
            When you drop a ball from a tower, you can predict when the ball will hit the ground and be absolutely spot on.
            You confuse scientific predictions with a Biblical prediction based upon faith. Predicting that the end is near because you personally believe God has forsaken you is not a valid prediction. And indeed those predictions come and go.

          2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
            Miebakagh57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Your answer proves you're a smart alec.  Congratulations!

        2. Nathanville profile image89
          Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          Yep, you’re spot on when you say “Ask a farmer about his experiences in the field.”

          I’m not a farmer but I do grow my own veg and fruits in our back garden, so that we are almost self-sufficient in vegetables all year round; and I have noticed a big difference in the growing seasons over the past 20 years.

          Prior to 2000 the growing season where I live didn’t start until mid-April, and ended by mid-September; whereas now the growing season starts mid-March and continues until mid-November – Hotter summers and milder winters.   It’s not all good news though; the change in climate confuses the trees and plants, and they’re either budding too soon (before the pollinating insects are out in force) or flowering too soon (going to seed) if I plant them at the usual time of year.  Our fuchsia (which we’ve had in our back garden for decades) is now in flower over 10 months of the year, whereas it used to only flower from Spring to Autumn (about 6 months of the year).

          There’s also been a dramatic decline in insect species in southern England; over the past 20 years flying insects have declined by 60% due to the warmer climate in Britain.

          Latest studies (in 2020) have shown that of the 2430 insect species in Britain (native to the UK, and many beneficial e.g. helps with pollination) 55 have already gone extinct due to a warming climate, and a further 286 (11%) have become endangered.  While in contrast there is a sharp rise in pest insects, normally native to France (warmer climate) as they migrate to Britain, which with its warming climate is more conducive to them; with the consequent that are having a negative impact of crop yields in British Agriculture. 

          Likewise, of the 725 aquatic insect species in Britain, 68 (9%) are now endangered, and 11 have already gone extinct.  And on the flip side, there are 30 native mosquitos that pose no threat, but since 2016 a number of invasive mosquitoes (that carry deadly diseases) which requires warmer climates to survive have been found in Kent, England (in small numbers); Kent being one of the warmest parts of England – but so far they haven’t established a foothold in Kent.

          Also, hundreds of fish and shellfish species native to Britain are now migrating northwards due to warming seas, adversely affecting the British fishing industry, and more exotic marine life never seen in British waters before (because our seas were to cold) e.g. 62 sightings of the Gigantic ‘killer’ jellyfish were seen on UK beaches this year, a species not seen in Britain before because in the past our seas were too cold.

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
            Miebakagh57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            On my part of the world, one of my favourite fruits is the mango. I hadn't seen any mango tree yeild the sweet succulent fruits for the past 6 years in my state. Though the trees will yield flowers every month.                                     But we get mangos from North and East of thd country.                                     The only explanation for this is climate change or global warming. For example, fresh corn is suppose to go out of season along with mango May/June. But the corn is still being planted and harvested in November.

          2. peterstreep profile image79
            peterstreepposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, we eat our own vegies too. And eat depending on the season.  I just started a mushroom plot (stropharia), so hopefully in a couple of weeks we will have some mushrooms too.
            We do live on solar power, and it's a good feeling to be independent and self sufficient.
            The strange thing is that we are now fighting against a huge plan to make a solar park very close to us.
            It's complete madness. hundreds of thousands of almond and olive trees will be cut down to make way for solar panels. The company Renovalia is Italian, backed up by a Israely hedge fund. So the money generated by the energy won't go to Spain at all.
            Farmers are individually approached to rent out their land, not knowing the scale of the solar parks (3.000 hectares - about 4.500 soccerfields!).
            I've nothing against solar energy but why not on the roofs of factories or the roofs of houses. Why destroy good farmland and the fauna and flora that comes with it. abusing the land and the farmers who rent out get nothing out of it as they have to declare the rent as income (so it's taxed) and the land will be seen as industrial land and not agricultural so the tax will go up too.
            The only party who gain by this enormous project is Renovalia. It's a classic example of disaster capitalism. Misusing the renewable energy sources and subsidies for speculation.
            We're handing over allegations this week against the project.
            It's so sad, as we are all for solar power and it's a good development, but to see this energy sector being  just like the fossil fuel sector destroying the earth and it's eco system makes you sad.

            ---

            Yes I read that there was a decline of insects in Germany as well. And so a decline in the animals that eat insects like birds.
            Sometimes people think it's only the polar bear on the ice rock that is effected by the climate crisis. But it is so much more.
            It's painful to see how the Great Barrier Riff near Australia is dying. And there are so many small not so famous disasters happening connected to climate change.
            I read in the Guardian last year that more people died from air pollution than from COVID the last two years...But (with all respect to the COVID victims) you hardly hear about this. There is no daily list that counts the dead worldwide due to air pollution in the newspaper!!!

            1. DrMark1961 profile image96
              DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

              Do you have a link to any local newspapers or other sources that discuss that solar park that is going to open in your area? Cutting down trees to make way for solar is sad and does not make any sense.

              1. peterstreep profile image79
                peterstreepposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, thank you Mark. We have email addresses from newspapers who already publicised a story about it. Which got an mediate response from the company Renovalia who did a paid add showing grassing sheep underneath the solar panels..., They even handed out free newspapers in the village when this add came out. To keep up the image that it is all green...
                So yes, they feel that it won't be an easy win.
                We are also in contact with local governments from the three villages affected. Some play innocent not knowing what is going on, há!
                It's a nasty business. As the plans are publicised but without telling anybody that they are publicized. And than you've got 30 working days from the first day of publication, to make aligations.
                Luckily a friend of ours is in the local governance and leaked the plans. Otherwise nobody would have known and we would have had the bulldozers  in our back gardens without notice.
                Some people will have fields full of solar panels' all around their house. And those fields will be fenced... It would be like living in a prison..
                The solar parks are divided in very small ones, to avoid scrutiny from the national government as they will be seen as small projects. But it's all the same company... It stinks on all sides...
                The company has also been active in Mexico and Chile, I read comparable stories from people over there on twitter...
                Sorry to bother you with this personal story, but as the threat was about climate change and this business is happening right now I thought it was something to add.

                1. Nathanville profile image89
                  Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  “Straight from the Horse’s Mouth”, far more reliable than just ‘hear say’; thanks for your personal account, which is most enlightening.  What is happening in your area is deplorable.

                  It would seem that ‘Planning Regulations’ are far more relaxed in Spain than in the UK.

                  In comparison, in the UK anyone applying for planning permission must, by law:-

                  •    Put up a site notice, and
                  •    Advertise in a local newspaper that circulates in the area.

                  If they don’t then they would invalidate their application, and would have to start the whole process all over again from scratch.

                  In the UK people are given 5 weeks to submit their objections and the whole planning process can typically take 5 months, with Appeals taking a further 5 months; and large controversial developments will always require a ‘Public Inquiry’ which can drag on for years.

                  Another major difference between Spain and Britain is that in Britain the main factors that will decide the outcome of a major Public Inquiry isn’t just the strength and validity of ‘Objections’ (relevant to Planning Regulations) but also Environmental issues.

                  For example, in Britain forests, designated AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest), Conservation Areas, Green Belt, National Parks, Wetland sites are all protected from development including development of windfarms and solar farms.

                  * One of the SSSI's (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) (protected land) in England:  https://youtu.be/uSUpnw4zgxs

                  So, in Britain, a company wishing to build a solar farm (or windfarm on land) are restricted to finding land that is NOT protected under law e.g. areas where development will have little or no negative environmental and wildlife impact.

                  Another example of where Regulations are tight in the UK is Australian’s Energy Company’s failed attempt to commercially frack in England:

                  •    In 2007 an Australian Energy Company (AJ Lucas) created a UK subsidiary Company called Cuadrilla which is 93% owned by the Australian Company, and 7% owned by the British employees of the local Company.

                  •    From 2011 Cradrilla performed a series of ‘test’ wells which established that there is far more oil and gas deep underground in England than there ever was in the North Sea of the coast of Scotland.

                  •    On the 15th October 2018 Cradrilla finally started to frack commercially in England, following years of delays due to strong local ‘objections’ (Public Enquires and Appeals in the Courts etc.)

                  •    However the UK Government (Conservative Government) banned fracking on the 2nd November 2019 because of the earthquakes that the fracking caused.  The Scottish Government (Socialist Government) banned fracking in Scotland in 2015.

                  •    On the 22nd September 2022 (two weeks after Liz Truss became Prime Minster she lifted the ban to allow fracking) – On the grounds of the current chronic shortage of natural gas in the Western World due to the was in Ukraine.

                  •    On the 26th October 2022 (a day after Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister) he re-imposed the fracking ban in England and Wales.  So that the oil and gas reserves that sit under England stay underground (untapped).

                  Yeah, the world desperately needs more Renewable Energy; but there is a right way and a wrong way to achieve it – and what’s happing where you live is most defiantly the ‘wrong way’.  There’s more than enough trees being lost in Brazil (deforestation), we don’t need to add to the problem. 

                  The UK currently has about 3 billion trees (1.42 million hectares), 13.2% of the UK’s land surface, comprising of 32 species of trees in our woodland and forests (of which 29 species are broadleaves). 

                  As part of the UK Government’s reforestation campaign to help combat global warming around 680,000 trees are planned to be planted in the UK over the 12 months.  It does fall short of the Government’s target, but it’s a step in the right direction.

                  I hope your fight against Renovalia is successful; I’d like to hear what the outcome is in due course.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                    Miebakagh57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                    Very interesting indeed.

                  2. peterstreep profile image79
                    peterstreepposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                    Hi Nathan, thanks for the response.
                    For planning permissions, you have to make it public in Spain as well. But it is not said that you have to make it public that you have made it public...
                    The plans are online. But only if you actively go looking for it. And if you don't know that anything is going on you won't go looking for it.
                    And there are notices about the project on the noticeboard in the town hall. But who reads those? When are you ever going to the town hall......
                    So the exposure is at a bare minimum. Something we definitely confront the local governments with.
                    For sure such tactics are used in other countries.
                    The law is one thing, the reality another...
                    Anyway. I will let you know how things develop and if we have any success.

                    The best thing against global warming is indeed to plant a tree.
                    That's a great campaign. I hope it will have a follow-up and become a yearly project. 680.000 trees a year would be good start.

                    We have such projects here as well, we plant trees together with the kids from school.

    4. CHRIS57 profile image60
      CHRIS57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Climate change is certainly a threat to the way of living, to the status quo of the western, developed world. Of course humans can adapt to almost everything so their existance as a species is not threatened.

      The narrative seems to be that climate change is initiated or contributed to by CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. And these emissions come mainly from burning fossile fuels to produce energy.

      Where is the initiative to save energy? Not by reducing industry and living but by getting more efficient.
      In this aspect the USA has a lot of potential. Why is it that per capita use of primary energy in the USA is twice as high as in the EU, UK or Japan or Korea? Even adjustment to PPP doesn´t change much in the overall energy inefficiency of the USA.

      Shouldn´t politics be measured on how this issue is tackled?

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        The USA is quite vast compared to other countries. Many of us travel for a living. We need fuel to travel. Furthermore, because we are so large, we rely on large trucks to travel large distances to provide us with the food and goods we need to live.
        Some of us live in states where winters are long. Thus, we need energy to heat our homes. Did you know that people are more likely to die from cold deaths than heat deaths?
        In the UK, people experience about 33 cold deaths for every heat death. Long story short, the U.S. is not as contained as the small countries you mentioned.

        Nevertheless, we have the cleanest energy of any nation.

        In the past 10 years, the U.S. has achieved the greatest reduction in carbon dioxide than any other nation.
        We will continue to innovate, but forcing us to go to zero emissions in 10 years is folly. It will destroy our GDP, which in turn will have dire & deathly consequences, especially for the poor and middle classes.

        1. CHRIS57 profile image60
          CHRIS57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

          ...The USA is quite vast compared to other countries.

          So what, primary energy useage for transportation is some 28% in the USA while some 30% in Europe.
          Apparently the "vast plains" in the USA are not responsible for energy negligence and inefficiency. It covers all sectors of the economy, industry, households..

          CO2 output per capita is also almost double in the USA compared to peer developed economies, except Canada, which is a twin to the USA in energy hunger.

          Always be careful with absolute numbers, there are no peer developed countries on our planet that match the population and economic size of the USA.
          ...in the past 10 years, the U.S. has achieved the greatest reduction in carbon dioxide than any other nation...
          In relative terms this is just a joke.

          If you think you can keep to the current status, do so, just fine with me. The next decade will show if that was a wise decision, not necessarily because of global warming, but because of economic harm this will do to the US economy.

          On the other hand i am confident that American ingenuity and entrepreneurism will eventually follow suit.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Much to unpack here, which I will do later. (I have little time to address much this weekend.)

            Nevertheless, I appreciate all the input and interesting information from all the participants in this forum, even if I disagree here and there.
            Until another time, then.

          2. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Before I can address “economic harm” I must ask what you mean by current status?

        2. Nathanville profile image89
          Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          The USA “have the cleanest energy of any nation”; I don’t think so.  If you look at the CO2 emission per capita you will find that the USA is one of the biggest offenders, ranked 16th in the world, compared for example to China, ranked at 42 or the UK ranked at 59th.

          CO2 Emissions per capita (tons):-

          •    USA = 15.52
          •    China = 7.38
          •    UK = 5.55

          Per Capita, the USA twice as polluting than China and three times more polluting than the UK.  The world average is 4.79 tons of CO2 per year per person.

          https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emiss … er-capita/

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
            Miebakagh57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            The Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain around 1750. But the silent thing many has overlooked is mass production of goods in factories reach its zenith in the USA.                                             While Great Britain had the 'steam engine', America explorer the crude oil in the form of petrol, a more higher grade of hydrocarbon than steam-driven by coal. It took years before other countries began to copy petroleum technology.                                      Petrol technology was American's secret for decades. And this account for her higher CO2 emissions into the atmospher. Long story short.

            1. Nathanville profile image89
              Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

              Actually, coal is far more polluting than oil, but the CO2 emissions I quoted above are not historic, they are current levels of CO2 emissions.

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                Miebakagh57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                Agreed. Thank you.

        3. Nathanville profile image89
          Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          You are technically right; more people in the UK do die from the cold in the winter months than from the heat in the summer. 

          But on average over the past 20 years it’s not “33 cold deaths for every heat death”, it’s been about 10 time more cold deaths than heat deaths e.g. over the past 20 years the average cold deaths has been around 8,500 per year, while heat deaths averaged at 800 per year.

          However, this year, with the hottest heatwave in the UK on record, when temperatures exceeded 40c (105f) there were 3,271 recorded heat deaths in the UK (far in excess to average), making cold deaths over the past year just 2.6 times higher than heat deaths.

          So with global warming, deaths from the heat are becoming a far more serious issue in the UK.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        "Why is it that per capita use of primary energy in the USA is twice as high as in the EU, UK or Japan or Korea?"

        There are many reasons, but the primary one may be wound up in that "primary energy" thing.  Just what is "primary energy" and how does it compare with (I assume) "secondary energy" sources?  Is the EU, or Japan/Korea, using a lot more gas that the US (per capita)?  Are they using more coal in the homes?  Or even wood, for heat/cooking?

        1. CHRIS57 profile image60
          CHRIS57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

          I think there are enough links on internet to find an explanation of what primary energy is. And definition applys to all countries on our little planet.

          If you have a badly insulated home you need more heating than a well insulated house would need. That is for winter time. Assuming you have an air condition in your house then in the summer you will need electricity to do the cooling. And again - badly insulated means more electricity.

          Comparing my experience from a double wide in winter in Michigan with my well insulated house in Northern Germany gives me enough personal data to verify and prove the statistics.

          Primary energy can only be counted if it is sold and payed for. So coal firing is also always a source for primary energy, unless you have a little coal mine in your back yard.

          When it comes to secondary energy = electricity then any thermal process (fossile or nuclear) requires some 200% of primary energy to produce 100% of electricity. The combustion engine in your car (if you have one) is doing much worse (only 20-30%), that is why you need a cooling water cycle to get rid of excess 70% primary heating energy in gasoline.

          Renewable energy on the other hand comes always with high efficiency. For example hydropower plants (like Hoover Dam) transform 80-90% of potential energy stored in the water level differential into electricity. This is why economies with high amount of renewables and with careful use of thermal energy (good insulation) use much less primary energy than those countries with a more negligent approach to this issue.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Renewable energy does not come with high efficiency. The opposite is true. In the U.S. we have gotten away from renewable energy because fossil fuels are superior, more efficient and affordable.
            To go backward in time makes no sense. We can find other ways to tackle global warming, which frankly, can wait. We have time, as in centuries.

            Frankly, we need to turn the oil spigots back on while we do more R&D. There is no point in allowing this country to lose its wealth by turning off our vast oil supply. That is madness and serves no one.

            But I do agree that the U.S. has the capacity to come up with solutions, some of which have yet to be fully researched, such as creating algae on oceans to create an unlimited, safe fuel source, (possibly) and, of course, exploring nuclear energy.

            1. CHRIS57 profile image60
              CHRIS57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

              ...Renewable energy does not come with high efficiency. The opposite is true. ...

              I don´t know what you are talking about. Probably you mix efficiency with pricing. But even concerning cost renewables are competitive. My direct experience with running and selling electricity from midsize Solar systems gets me a decent break even of some 8 ct./kWh. This is the equivalent of 48 USD/barrel crude oil, if used to generate electricity.

              Current market price would have to be cut to 50% to reach this level. Average price of crude oil was well above 50 USD for the past 5 years, and that includes Corona downturn in 2020. So what are you talking about?

              I don´t know what break even price for shale or fracking oil is, but it better be below said 48 bucks per barrel to be competitive. Let me know.

              For wind turbines the break even is even lower at some 5 ct./kWh or 30 USD/barrel.

              It will become increasingly difficult in the future to win the bet on fossile fuels. Just saying..

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                "My direct experience with running and selling electricity from midsize Solar systems gets me a decent break even of some 8 ct./kWh."

                Is that before or after government subsidies?  Does it cost 8 ct/kWh to build and operate a solar system for, say, 10 years?  Paying taxes and all other fees just as every other energy producer does?

                Or is there massive govt. intervention to reach that 8ct in order to be competitive?  I know that's how it works in the US; without govt. rules, laws and subsidies solar would never go anywhere because it is just too expensive.

                1. CHRIS57 profile image60
                  CHRIS57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  ..Is that before or after government subsidies?...

                  It is without subsidies and tax breaks.

                  The business case is quite simple: Investment per kWp installed power is some 800 USD. Harvest ist 1000 hours/year. This gets us 1000h x 0,08 ct/kWh = 80 USD/year. Leaves you with 10% earnings/year, not brilliant but decent, as i stated.

                  Though i have to add that in G. we have high tax deductions before even investing. So you can choose either to bring your hard earning money to the tax office or use it as equity in a solar investment. My personal favourite is 20% from tax breaks, 20% fresh money, 60% loan. Gives you initial payback on fresh money of 10% x 100% / 20% = 50% in the first year. Then you start the net present value game and the payback percentage goes down a little.

              2. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                I'll leave most of your comment to our mathematicians, but is not a 42-gallon barrel of oil the equivalent of what is needed to boil a cup of water?

                As for rebates, the government says we have them, but when it comes time to pay, the average consumer never seems to get them,

                Solar energy is expensive. Fossil fuels are not expensive. But, we do need to commit ourselves to research and development for other sources of fuel that are efficient and that work in winter, summer, and year-round for that matter.

                1. CHRIS57 profile image60
                  CHRIS57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  I suggest you work yourself through these dry papers on discounted cost for energy.

                  https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r … ergy-lcoe/

                  A good overview is page 7 of this pdf: https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/laz … vfinal.pdf

                  Renewables, wind, solar are much cheaper than fossiles. That is why the yearly add or replacement of electricity generation in the US is some 80% renewable. This whole renewable debate is not political, it is pure financial.

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                    These graphs are not useful for anyone who cannot afford solar. The initial cost of solar is not something the poor and lower-income people can afford. Subsidies are a tax on all people. Higher taxes hurt the poor throughout the world and even middle America. I realize Europeans are fine with paying high taxes for "free" stuff, but that does not translate into financial gain, despite what your graphs from the public company, Lazard, have attempted to indicate.
                    Progressives are making the sun and solar their god. This is not wise.
                    However, as I said in the beginning, there are some people in some regions for whom solar may be partially useful.

            2. Nathanville profile image89
              Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

              ...”Renewable energy does not come with high efficiency” - The opposite is true. ...

              In the UK Renewable Energy became cheaper than fossil fuels in 2016, and over the past week 53.1% of the UK’s electricity has been generated from Renewables, compared to just 29.5% from fossil fuels – As shown in the image below taken from the UK’s National Grid Live website:-

              https://hubstatic.com/16230019.jpg

        2. Nathanville profile image89
          Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          Wilderness - Yep, absolutely, I fully agree with what you say about the vast majority of European members of NATO not paying their fair share. 

          Of the 30 NATO members, only 9 actually pay the required minimum 2%.

          Although they could afford it, none of the wealthy NATO members in Europe, except the UK, pay the minimum 2%, which is despicable and disgraceful, and inexcusable.

          Whereas 7 of the poorer European nations in NATO, who can ‘least afford’ to pay, actually pay more than the 2% minimum.

          Greece is one of the poorest countries in Europe, yet it pays a higher percentage of its GDP than any other NATO member, including the USA.

          The UK (the 6th wealthiest country in the world), apart from the USA, is the only wealthy NATO member who pays more than the 2% minimum; the UK currently pays 2.12% of its GDP, but because of the war in Ukraine the UK intends to increase that to 3%.  In fact, in money terms the USA is the only NATO member who pays more in defence than the UK.

          The 9 of the 30 NATO members who pay the minimum 2% or more of their GDP on Defence are:-

          •    Greece = 3.76%
          •    USA = 3.47%
          •    Poland = 2.42%
          •    Lithuania = 2.36%
          •    Estonia = 2.34%
          •    UK = 2.12%
          •    Latvia = 2.10%
          •    Croatia = 2.03%
          •    Slovak Republic = 2%

    5. Sharlee01 profile image90
      Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      I don't as a rule get into discussions in regard to climate change. Due to my background in science ( which is limited) I have done enough research to know climate change is occurring, and it has progressed over the past couple of decades.  The majority of scientists agree we are seeing changes at a faster pace. 

      It is clear we need to make changes to try to slow the changes down, and scientists also agree this will be very hard. Naturally solar and wind will help, but in my view, not enough, and will cause pollutants of their own.

      Sort of a trade-off, that could in the long run for the planet.  I think the way that this administration is going about pushing the Green deal is doing more harm than good. America needs a very good constructive plan to usher in greener energy. And a plan that all will see the good in.

      So many social issues are involved, that are being ignored. So many energy options or combinations of energy options may not be considered.   I think we have many good options to go side by side with wind and solar,  for instance, nuclear, and fusion power, and work toward using far fewer fossa fuels.

      Moving toward cleaner energy will take time, and careful planning, in my view.  And w just need to weigh the trade-offs carefully. Poisoning our water, and soil could be a very bad trade-off.

      The social turmoil that could result from moving too fast could truely stymie all efforts.  Note I use the word could.

      This is a thread that provokes one to really sit back and think, in my view. Thanks for posting it Savvy.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        Hi Sharlee, From what I have read, solar panels & wind turbines combined account for 1.1 % of global energy. We still need fossil fuels because they are cheaper and more efficient than renewable sources.
        Moving to alternative energy sources will take time. I agree with you 100%.
        The good news is that we have time. Meanwhile, we would be better served to address more pressing issues, such as health and education for ourselves and poor nations. Poor nations cannot afford solar & wind power. They much prefer fossil fuel. Otherwise, they are left to use wood & dung, which are terrible pollutants, to heat their homes and cook their food.
        Greenpeace has tried providing small villages with solar micro-grids. They have failed spectacularly.

    6. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      "Is climate change a threat to our existence?"
      My first thought was about as much as the rapture. In other words, they both are about truths regarding our existence and it comes down to beliefs.

      " If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization?"
      Civilization is not static. It is dynamic as well as being global thus one portion may diminish while another is not affected.

      "What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change?"
      From my understanding, though I have not done a deep dive, they are in alignment with global consensus guided by science. Other than that I have no opinion other than a cursory poking about.

      "How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics?"
      Not much in my view other than osmosis fed by the media. Isn't that pretty much the same as any policy?

      "Do you believe Al Gore?"
      I haven't heard him speak about it nor read anything by him

      "What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO?"
      None at this time. I may look into it at a later time.

      "What do you think about solar panels and wind energy?"
      They are both a first step on the right path for renewable energy to meet our needs seeking to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        Hello tsmog, You get an A for thoroughness. The important thing to know is that we will not die from climate change, unless we give up fossil fuels altogether. Solar and wind will not heat a cold house during the dead of a still winter night.

        Another interesting tidbit is that Enron developed a close relationship with politicians to promote action regarding global warming/climate change. I guarantee you, they didn’t do so out of benevolence.
        Climate change activism is big money. As long as politicians keep people fearful, the money keeps rolling in… but not for voters.

        If we keep on this trajectory of bad climate policy, as begun by the Obama presidency, the U.S. will suffer economically and this current lack of growth will continue into the future. This is a path that needs to be averted.

    7. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      There has been so-called climate change since time immemorial.   Climate change is here to stay.  Except for the various ice ages, climate change doesn't pose a threat- species have either adjusted to the change or became extinct.   There are more important issues to consider than climate change which is fluff.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

        gmWilliam, what are those 'more  important issues to consider than the flufy climate changes'? Are these related to energy or weather phenomena being discussed here? Or are these just political or Americanism? Much thanks.

    8. Nathanville profile image89
      Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Taking each of your points in your opening statement in turn:-

      #1:  Is climate change a threat to our existence?

      Most defiantly yes - Within the past 20 years, and 10 years in particular, that has become increasingly apparent:

      •    This year alone Europe, the UK and the USA have all seen record breaking heatwaves, and wildfires, and the USA has seen the worst hurricanes on record.

      With the UK historically having a cold and damp climate, wildfires and heatwaves were a rare occurrence until 20 years ago e.g. prior to 2002 the last heatwave and drought in the UK was in 1976.  The UK’s ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 2002, with this year being the hottest heatwave ever when temperatures reached 40.3C (105f).

      Deadly Heatwave, Wildfires Raging Across Europe (Summer 2022): https://youtu.be/7xxixCZK69I

      Wildfires rip through the UK amid record-breaking heatwave: https://youtu.be/zQ4wEx9v7_I

      •    This year saw the worst devastation on record from floods and rising sea levels in many third world countries.

      And with global warming set to rise, it will only get worse.

      #2:  If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization?

      The latest estimate by scientist is 8 years before we reach tipping-point (point of no return) if drastic measures are not taken to reduce CO2 emission.

      #3:  What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change?

      Not being American I don’t have enough knowledge of American politics to comment.

      #4:  How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics?

      Unfortunately, from what I see in these forums the average American person’s knowledge on climate change policies and basic economics is limited.  However, most Europeans do have a reasonable grasp of climate change policies, although few understand economics.  However, climate change is a topic that I’ve taken a keen interest in since 2012, and I do have a good understanding of economics e.g. qualified in the subject.

      #5:  Do you believe Al Gore?

      Not being American, I don’t know who Al Gore is.

      #6:  What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO?

      I have a lot of respect for both Organisations.

      #7:  What do you think about solar panels and wind energy?

      In many countries around the world, including China, the EU and UK they play an important part in the Energy Mix e.g. over the last 7 days 53.1% of the UK’s electricity was generated from Renewable Energy, with 49.5% of the electricity generated coming from just wind power.

      And last year I had solar panels and a wall battery fitted to our home, and even in the British climate, during the winter months (last year) half of our electricity came from our solar panels; and during the summer months we were virtually self-sufficient in the energy we used.

      So yes, solar panels and wind energy are very important.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        Not sure if I addressed this. Hard to keep up with the threads since I do not post everyday. For now, let me say that hurricanes are not the result of climate change. There is no scientific evidence for that at all.
        I am surprised that solar helped you during winter months. If that is the case, good on you for taking care of your family. As you mentioned, solar is way less expensive in the U.K.

        I do not believe that China, the polluter of the world, plays an important role in climate change (in any positive way) or that they should be lauded in any way. To give them credit for good is an abomination to all that is good and decent.
        Thank you for posting. Your comments have been interesting.

        1. Nathanville profile image89
          Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          Yes you did address this in another forum, and as you may remember, one of your colleges (who’s almost as sceptical about climate change as you) did provide a link that quite rightly point out that although hurricanes have not become more frequent because of climate change, they are becoming more destructive because of climate change; especially the ones that regularly hit the USA.

          The reasons that hurricanes are becoming more destructive due to climate change is very ‘basic’ physics that most kids learn at school (at least in British schools) e.g. it’s to do with temperature differentials:  It’s the temperature differentials around the globe that causes air currents, and the greater the differentials the stronger the air current (wind, gales, hurricanes) e.g. global warming.

          Anyway, you’re still ignoring the dramatic increase in heatwaves, drought, wildfires, melting ice caps and glaciers and rising sea levels, due to climate change.  As I pointed out above, before this century, the last time we had a heatwave in the UK was in 1976; since 2002 (in 20 years) we’ve now had 10 heatwaves, this year’s being the worst, with temperatures reaching 40.3c (105f), which for a country when prior to 2002 it never reaches even 30c (86f) is unprecedented.

          Likewise, up until a few years ago, wildfires in the UK were unheard of; whereas now, they’re becoming a common biannual occurrence.

          I don’t know why you should think solar panels aren’t effective in the UK over winter; these days solar panels don’t need direct sunlight to work, even on cloudy days they generate electricity, albeit not as much as when its sunny, but every bit helps. 

          Solar panels used to be as expensive in the UK as they are in the USA, but the UK has gotten over the initial cost stage of establishing the industry, infrastructure and supply chains – It’s now a well-established, and big, industry in the Europe, generating wealth of jobs in the industry, and contributing to the country’s economy (GDP).  So yes, solar energy is now cheap in the UK (economies of scale); and since 2016 cheaper than fossil across the EU and UK – which is why the UK Government stopped subsidies on solar energy in 2019 (the subsidies are no longer needed because Renewable Energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels across Europe, including in the UK).

          Where you say “I do not believe that China, the polluter of the world, plays an important role in climate change (in any positive way)”; FYI, the only reason China is the polluter is because they have the biggest population.  China’s population is 4.35 times bigger than the USA, yet China’s CO2 Emissions is only double.  The USA is the 2nd worst polluter in the world, not just because of its large population bus also because Americans contribute double the amount of CO2 emission per person than Chinese, and three times the amount of CO2 emissions per person than in Britain – So it’s nothing for Americans to be proud of.

          Yes, China should be lauded for their efforts:  In China Renewable Energy has been increasing steadily, from 17.66% of their energy mix (electricity) in 2008 to 27.32% in 2020; while in contrast Renewable Energy in the USA is just 12% (2021), way behind China’s and the Europe’s progress towards transitioning towards Renewable Energy.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            China should not be lauded.

            1. Nathanville profile image89
              Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

              Why shouldn’t China be lauded for their efforts?

              1.    Per person, the USA generates twice as much CO2 than China, and three times more than the UK:  CO2 is the root cause of Climate Change – see data below.

              2.    Only 18% of the USA’s electricity comes from Renewable Energy, while 29.09% of China’s electricity is from Renewable Energy, and 38.6% of the UK’s electricity is from Renewable energy.  Renewable Energy helps to reduce CO2 emissions, yet the USA is putting far less effort into rolling out Renewable Energy than China – see data below.

              So, if any country shouldn’t be lauded, it’s the USA for its lack of effort to cut CO2 emissions. 

              •    CO2 Emissions per Capita (per person) in China is only 7.38 CO2 tons per year – half that of the USA.

              •    CO2 Emissions per Capita (per person) in the USA is a whopping 15.52 CO2 tons per year – Double that of China.

              •    CO2 Emissions per Capita (per person) in the UK is only 5.55 CO2 tons per year – A third that of the USA.

              In 2020 Renewable Energy accounted for 29.09% of China’s electricity energy mix.
              •    Hydropower = 17.3%
              •    Wind power = 5.5%
              •    Solar power = 3.1%
              •    Thermal energy = 2%
              •    Biomass = 1.5%
              •    Pumped hydro storage = 0.4%

              In 2021 Renewable Energy accounted for just 18% in the USA’s electricity energy mix.
              •    Wind power = 9.2%
              •    Hydropower = 6.3%
              •    Solar power = 2.8%
              •    Biomass = 1.3%
              •    Thermal energy = 0.4%

              In 2020 Renewable Energy accounted for 38.6% in the UK electricity energy mix. 
              •    Wind power = 24.8%
              •    Biomass = 6.5%
              •    Solar power = 4.4%
              •    Hydropower = 1.6%
              •    Pumped hydro storage = 1.3%

              So before criticising China, you should look at yourself (USA) first – “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.

            2. DrMark1961 profile image96
              DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

              Very good point. If China did not have a communist dictatorship we might have someone from that country able to share honest numbers. Those numbers he qouted are not true, and certainly do not take into account the millions of people burning coal in their fireplace to keep their homes warm. That is why they have so much pollution despite what the government claims.

              Someone from England, who is aware of the terrible pollution in London when everyone burnt coal at home, should realize that the regime in China is not to be lauded. The only reason that they can report lower numbers is that they are fake and invented by their dictatorial govenment.

              1. Nathanville profile image89
                Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                Actually, if you look at the data on the Internet, no one is denying that China burns a lot of coal, 62% of their electricity comes from coal, which is comparable to the USA where 63% of their electricity is from fossil fuels.  And China does have a chronic pollution problem, just as Britian did back in the 1970's and before (which I remember well). 

                The point I'm making is that just 10 years ago, 78% of their electricity came from coal, now it's down to 62% (in 10 years), and still decreasing as they continue to rollout Renewable Energy.

                China now operates almost 50% of the world's installed offshore wind, and China uses over 33% of the world’s solar panels in the world.

                The problem China faces is such a huge population 4.35 times larger than the population in the USA.

                1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                  DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  China should not be praised. As a rational person you should question any numbers coming out of a society that actively interferes with free speech.

                  1. Nathanville profile image89
                    Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                    Yeah, I know where you're coming from, and valid points questioning data from a society that actively interferes with free speech.  But to be frank, most of the mainstream information on climate change published in the right-wing media in the USA (supporting the coal and oil industry) is riddled with false information (propaganda), and in my view less trustworthy than China.

                    I don't need to take just take the information published by China. Much of it is independently varied by other sources e.g. as mentioned below, Chris has first-hand knowledge from working there that the "numbers from China is no fake".

              2. CHRIS57 profile image60
                CHRIS57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                There are always these  "killer" arguments on facts or numbers coming from non transparent, autocratic countries and thus not being trustworthy.

                My professional life took me many times to China. From being involved in planning the Three Gorges Project in the early 90ties to windfarming in recent years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam

                Our Chinese headquarter was located in a twin tower office building in Shanghai. On smog days in 2013 we couldn´t see the opposite tower some 50 m away. These times are over. Never experiences this any more in the past 5 years.

                I had business in Beijing in 2014 during the APEC conference. We experienced blue skys which was very unusual. Authorities had shut down surrounding industries and this allowed for the sky to clear up.
                But most of the time back then the sun could only be seen through a curtain of yellow clouds, giving all photos (Tiananmin square or forbidden city..) a reddish colour. Again, if you look at recent postcards, this is no more.

                China is adding every year the hydropower output equivalent of 1 to 2 Hoover Dams to its grid.

                No media, personal experience, personally talking to people. The numbers from China are no fake.

              3. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                Miebakagh57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                Terrible and awful. Even when the coronavirus 2019 pandemic, began to breakout, China, hide the correct figure.                                              No Communist Regime will ever disclosed to near trutti the accuracy of any issue.                                     Is it any wonder then that 'real' Donald  Trump, walk out on the  Unitdd Nations?

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

        Arthur, I'm repeating the reply to point #5. The first response stuck because my keyboard develop faults, and I've got it service.                                        'Do you believe Al Gore?' 'Being American(thd word's suppose to be British) I don't know who Al Gore is.'                                       The British and Americans are related for centuries before the  American war of Independence, and you should have a basic grasp or ABC of American current affairs.                                       FYI Al Gore, is a former  USA vice presidential candidate.

        1. Nathanville profile image89
          Nathanvilleposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks, I just looked him up on Wikipedia to learn that he was vice president of the USA under President Bill Clinton, and that he was in Office from 1993 to 2001.

          But prior to Trump I had no interest in American politics e.g. it was not controversial in those days, and it had little effect of importance in British Current Affairs, and therefore of little interest to me.

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
            Miebakagh57posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Okay, got it.

    9. peterstreep profile image79
      peterstreepposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      The Climate crisis we are in (not facing, and not climate change) can only be changed by changing economics.
      Today we have a growth model of economics. This is simply unsustainable. Resources have limits and are at odds with forever growing.
      There is an economic model that' getting more and more attention. And that's the doughnut model.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_(economic_model)
      Where economics is sustainable. and not based on growth.
      I don't know much about this, but it is clear that the economic system is the culprit.
      You can change all the fossil fuels for solar and wind energy, still as long as you don't change the way of living you/we will come to a point where all the energy resources will be spent.
      So energy and resources should be used in a way that they are recycled into the economic system and not simply used once and thrown away.

    10. CHRIS57 profile image60
      CHRIS57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Just to throw in a fairly new investigation on climate stability:

      https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adc9241

      In short: Climate/temperatures are affected by green house gases, especially CO2. Chemical processes by weathering of silicates seem to have a self regulatory impact on CO2 concentration, because CO2 reacts with silicates (stone..) and takes it out of the atmsphere.
      Scientists have searched for explanations why temperature control was already active (millions of years ago), long before photosynthesis (plant growth) could play a significant role to regulate CO2 concentration.

      If this academic work holds some merit, then this will change the big picture on climate.
      However it does not releave us from the immediate dangers for mankind in the coming decades and centuries.

      As some scientists were asked:
      "Will mankind survive?"
      Answer: "About half of our species."

    11. peterstreep profile image79
      peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      It's good to see this discussion is still open as it's the most important topic of our generation.
      Climate change will lead to mass emigration and wars for resources, crop problems with fertilization, extinction of animals and plants, and change in air temperature and humidity.
      We're still fighting against the huge solar parks that are planned to be built here. Cutting down millions of almond and olive trees to put solar panels.
      The good farming ground is bought by Renovalia who approached each farmer individually with confidentiality contracts, so nobody knew about the scale of the solar park.
      The solar parks will not create new jobs as they will be built within a year with a lot of specialists coming not from the region and then everything will be automated for 30 years.
      Solar parks are speculation and just another way to dominate the energy market.
      The best way to use solar is to use all the roofs and abandoned industrial places.
      We live in a time in which huge changes have to be made. But I don't think politicians have the guts to make them as they are more concerned about votes than about making the world a better place.
      Powerful politicians denying climate change are a deadly danger for the future. Like denying smoking is deadly dangerous.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Yes. I agree completely with you.

      2. Nathanville profile image89
        Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Thanks for the update; and I also agree completely with you.

      3. DrMark1961 profile image96
        DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Do you still have family in the Netherlands? If so, what is their reaction to the government slowing down farm production?

        1. peterstreep profile image79
          peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, I still have family and friends in The Netherlands and visit them once a year.
          The problems with the farms and their CO2 problem is a problem 10+ years in the making. It's not a new problem, the only thing is that the government is pushed to take actions now because of European climate agreements. They did not take action for 10+ years as the farming industry is a powerful industry and they were afraid to do something. But stalling a problem is never a good thing.
          The farmers had years to make plans to change their farms and way of farming. And the smart ones did. But some people think that everything will always stay the same and are now indignant and angry about the sudden measurements.
          It looks as if the public opinion in The Netherlands is that they are tired of the farmer's protests as most people realize that the government has to do something about the climate crisis. And that farmers are crushing into a government building with a tractor and making blockades to stop getting products into the shops does not help to get the public on their side.
          The Dutch government was actually sued by the public as they found that the government had not done enough to stop the climate crisis.
          And the public won.
          Dutch supreme court upholds landmark ruling demanding climate action

          1. DrMark1961 profile image96
            DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks, it is good to hear from someone who actually knows of the situation. Journalists (on both sides of the aisle) warp the situation and it is hard for any of us to know what is happening from reading their diatribes.

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
              Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              The Nethderland's Supreme Court judgement is a most vital historic landmark.                                            That human rights is part of the climate crisis to be protect is an understanding. Any government should know this, more than an individual. Thanks.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                So if the Nigerian supreme court decided to stop palm oil production because it leads to deforestation and global warming you would be okay with that? They could say "we are govenment and we know more than any individual" while leaving many Nigerians at a loss of a basic income and food.

                We recently elected a socialist president here in Brazil that said he plans on doing the same thing. Food prices for many are already very high.

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                  Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Dr. Mark, I wouldn't agree with your first statement. Every. Nigerian will not.
                                          The thing is that planting of tree regularly is no longer being done by the government.                                    The present political dispensation, is worst than the Military Government, the later is bent on planting tree every day. Thanks again.

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                    DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    I was using that as an example because palm oil plantations are being blamed on deforestation and thus global warming. You can choose any food that is commonly consumed in your area.

                    What if the government decided that production of that food was contributing to global warming and stopped or slowed down production? Do you think that would be a good thing for your country? Here it is beef, as Brazilians consume more beef than most countries in the world and the beef industry is often criticized for deforestation/climate change.

                  2. Nathanville profile image89
                    Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Yep, absolutely  Miebakagh, good points and good examples.

                    For example, where you say - “If grassland is to be cleared for a building, attempts should be made to plant some evergreen trees around.” 

                    Since 1948 (post war Britain) It’s been the UK Government policy (regardless to which Government is in power) to support and promote ‘Urban Green Spaces’, with the goal that every citizen living in a city should be no more than a 10 minute walk away from green-land. 

                    So when cities and towns in Britain are re-developed, provision is always made to incorporate greenery, which includes planting trees; currently 30% of urban land in cities and towns in England is ‘Urban Green Space’.

                    I live in a city, yet when I look out of my home-office window, all I can see predominantly is just trees; see photo below.

                    Plus, even in the centre of Bristol (the city where I live), you don’t see a concreate jungle, you see buildings intermingled with trees, as this short aerial video below of the centre of Bristol shows.

                    The video below was filmed from Cabot Tower, which is just a 10 minute walk from the city centre, and in every video shot you’ll see plenty of trees intermingled with the buildings: https://youtu.be/pC9kiYALPME

                    Below:  View from my home-office window, which although I live in a city, is what I see when I’m sitting at my computer to take part in these forums.

                    https://hubstatic.com/16268798_f1024.jpg

                2. peterstreep profile image79
                  peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  One of the obligations of a government is to protect it's citizens. Climate Change is a direct threat against the citizens. If a Government is not protecting the citizens (and in many countries they don't and only protect themselves.) Than yes a government can be taken to court.
                  If it means that one industry has to be changed for the best interest of the citizens of the country then a government should do so.


                  Food prices are world wide high Mark, here in Spain everything has rissen too (as the fuel prices has rissen and the grain prices. - so products related to fuel rise...ll products have to be transported)

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                    DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Governments need to decide which is the most imminent threat though. For instance, if half of your citizens are going to die in the next few years from starvation, that is a more significant issue than climate change.

                    Yes, I realize prices are high worldwide secondary to the goverment dispersal of funds during the pandemic. Stopping food production though is not going to help those prices go down.

    12. peterstreep profile image79
      peterstreepposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      https://hubstatic.com/16290610.jpg

      Unprecedented temperatures. It's clear that every year we get more extreme weather.
      The climate crisis is not something we can hide under the carpet. It's a harsh reality and we don't solve it with money. We only solve it with a mentality change. Starting with the awareness that it is a huge problem and not just a far away not my problem kind of thing.
      Have a lovely Christmas.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Lots to be said on this subject. Merry Christmas, dear Peter. I hope you and yours enjoy every minute of this special day.

        1. Nathanville profile image89
          Nathanvilleposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Now, now; where you say “So, I disagree that the United States is as corrupt as Nigeria, or England for that matter.” 

          I agree that the USA is not as corrupt as Nigeria, but it’s a lot more corrupt than the UK; that should go without saying.

          Also, the USA does not have a monopoly on illegal migrants trying to cross your borders; 100’s of thousands try to enter the EU and the UK each year. 

          •    Over 308,000 illegal migrants into the EU in 2022.

          •    45,756 illegal migrants crossed the English Channel to UK in 2022:  https://youtu.be/hy4HO8xXv08

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Oh, if we only had the pittance of illegal aliens entering our country.  Three quarters the population of the EU but 7 times the illegal crossings. 4.5X the population of the UK, but 45X the illegal aliens.  We get more every week than the UK gets in a year!

            Say, it's a little more expensive than Martha's Vineyard, but could we ship a few hundred thousand to London?  Or maybe Glasgow?

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
              Miebakagh57posted 18 months agoin reply to this

              wilderness, (you're unusually at it again) like  FatFredyCats. But I'm laughing it out loud!                                                    Okay, it'll take me some time to answer savvydating. Thanks.

            2. Nathanville profile image89
              Nathanvilleposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              I’m not disputing the figures, I recognise that the USA have a lot of illegal migrants compared to the EU & UK; all I was doing was pointing out that the USA doesn’t have a monopoly on it, and contrary to what savvydating was suggesting, such large numbers of illegal migrants to the USA is no indication that the USA is a superior place to live in relation to the rest of the free democratic world.

              One consideration that is being ignored is the fact that illegal migrants to the USA are predominately people from poor countries in south America, who in order to get to the American border have a long and enduing trek north over land, and through Mexico.

              Whereas, illegal migrants to the EU & EK are predominantly from the Middle East and African nations, and who have a treacherous sea journey to reach Europe, and then a long and enduring trek north over land before reaching the EU border and subsequently North France if they want to get to the UK, and even then have to make the dangerous journey across the British Channel between France and England to reach Britain.

              Most illegal migrants to Australia are from Asian countries, and to get to Australia have to make a long and treacherous journey by sea.

              So where the illegal migrants come from and how they get to you are going to impact on numbers e.g. Europe is more difficult for illegal migrants from the Middle East and Africa to reach than the USA is for illegal migrants from South American countries.

              Yep, Britain, as tiny as it is might have only had 45,756 illegal migrants crossing the English Channel from France to the UK in 2022, but they are not the only refugees the UK took in over the past 12 months:-

              In 2022, the UK Government encouraged and accepted a total of 186,000 refugees as follows:-

              •    89,000 Ukrainians.
              •    76,000 from Hong Kong, and
              •    21,000 Afghans from Afghanistan. 

              And during the 2nd world war the UK took in 80,000 refugees from war torn Europe.

              Yep, where you say “….could we ship a few hundred thousand to London?”-

              Actually, in my personal opinion, I would welcome them; because of an ageing population, declining birth rate and Brexit we have a chronic labour shortage across all economic sectors in Britain, including in the NHS, bus drivers, lorry drivers, farm labourers and the leisure and tourist industries etc. 

              For example:- 

              •    In September 2022, the NHS had 133,446 vacancies; 9.7% of the total workforce. 

              •    A third of soft fruits are left to rot in the fields because there aren’t enough farm labourers to pick the fruit.

              •    Disruption to the supply chains and public transport because there aren’t enough drivers.

              Industry has bitterly complained to the UK Government, pleading with it to relax the tough immigration laws, but their pleas fall on deaf ears because the current UK Government is dominated by the ERG (a hard right-wing nationalist political group within the Conservative Party who are anti-European and anti-immigration); so the current Conservative Government’s anti-immigration policy is governed by ‘political ideology’ rather than economics.

              A completely different picture to post war Britain, when we had a similar chronic labour shortage; during that period, from 1953 to 1962 (when the Conservative were in power) over half a million migrants were imported into Britain to resolve the labour shortage problem; including 272,450 from the West Indies, 75,850 from India and 67,330 from Pakistan – This was known as the Windrush Generation.

              Windrush was the HMT Empire Windrush, a German passenger liner and cruise ship that the Germany military commandeered during the 2nd world war for a navy and troopship, which was subsequently seized by the British at the end of the war a ‘prize of war’.

              The Empire Windrush was the first ship used by the Labour Government in 1948 to bring back immigrants from the Caribbean to help rebuild Britain; hence the start of a mass migration to Britain known as the Windrush Generation.

              The Windrush generation https://youtu.be/DPxni9s-GQE

              1. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Nathanville, Do you disagree with the article headlined,  "London as a corrupt financial capital"

                And while I hate to cut and paste endlessly, and avoid doing so like the plague, the article goes on to say:

                "The British are in no position to preach, according to the world-famous expert on the mafia and other forms of organized crime, Roberto S., the journalist, and author told his audience... that British financial institutions enabled what he called “criminal capitalism” to operate through the network of offshore banks, investment funds, and other holdings in British territories."

                ... his research showed that the City of London operated in a way that made possible the working of financial systems that eluded investigation, let alone taxation, and effectively made Britain the most corrupt country. He was quoted by the Guardian and Telegraph as saying:

                "If I asked what the most corrupt place on Earth is, you might say it’s Afghanistan, maybe Greece, Nigeria, or the south of Italy. I would say it is the UK. It’s not UK bureaucracy, police, or politics, but what is corrupt is the financial capital.99% of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore."

                Bernie Madoff comes to mind. My understanding is that the greater majority of his investors were European.

                Anyhoo, this is a digression from the discussion of climate change.

                If you could refrain from cutting & pasting endless graphs and lists, and perhaps discuss one point with a paragraph or two of meaningful information, that might be a more productive way to have a more productive and fruitful discussion on climate change.  Thanks.

                1. abwilliams profile image65
                  abwilliamsposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Savvy, I would love to have more one on one or group discussions/debates, but the majority seem to be all about cutting and pasting their rebuttals & one-upping the naysayers.
                  Since when did Vanity Fair become all the rage? It is utilized all of the time, no matter the subject. This is scary, not as scary as the climate alarmists, but scary enough!

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    Spot on.
                    This forum is not supposed to be a game of “gotcha.” Best to use words sparingly. Throwing all manner of Internet material at the wall to see what sticks and what drowns out any thoughtful, yet dissenting voice is not useful, and certainly not fruitful.
                    Rather, it is an exercise in banality.

                2. Nathanville profile image89
                  Nathanvilleposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes I do disagree with the article headlined, "London as a corrupt financial capital"; and where’s the link – you provided no link to the article?

                  And FYI I do not ‘cut and paste’, I research and write in my own words from many sources, on topics that I have some knowledge and experience:  And where I don’t have that knowledge and experience I say so.

                  London is the financial capital of the world, yes; and yes for historical reasons there is ‘tax havens’ e.g. Jersey.  And yes, prior to the Ukrainian war London was famously used by the Russian Mafia to money launder.  Since then however, the British Government has cracked down on the Russian Mafia assets in London, and frozen them.

                  But as you’ve quoted in your ‘cut and paste’, it is clearly pointed out in black and white that the UK bureaucracy, police, and politics are NOT corrupt – A clear distinction that needs to be made; and that non-corruption does extend to the Bank of England, and the Stock Market.

                  One blaring error in the article you ‘cut and pasted’ is where it says “99% of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore.":  That is a blatant exaggeration – If you fact check, it’s 38% of the FTSE 100 companies who uses tax havens, not the 99% claimed by Roberto Saviano.

                  Did you know that Roberto Saviano was sentenced for plagiarism on appeal in 2013, and in another plagiarism case in 2015, in his defence Roberto Saviano said “I'm not a journalist or a reporter, but, rather, a writer?

                  I think what may cause some misunderstanding between us on this matter is that you are probably not aware that the financial capital in London is located in ‘The City of London’ which is just one mile square in size and with a population of just 11,000 people, and which is separate and independent from a city called London which 670 square miles with a population of over 8 million people e.g. a city within a city.

                  This Video explains the financial city of London:  https://youtu.be/LrObZ_HZZUc

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    https://theconversation.com/nigeria-a-c … tory-61120

                    I provided the above link to our Nigerian friend,  Mie… 57 about five days ago. Here it is again. The article was quoted by BBC and The Telegraph, as I recall.

                    Yes, you do cut and paste an enormous amount of material from the internet, with some of your own words interspersed in-between.

                    Do not blame me if you are constantly asking for links and notations from the internet. I just gave you that, briefly, yet still you complain.

                    If anyone looks throughout this forum, they will find that the majority of my words are my own and the majority of your responses are pages of cut & paste material from the Internet.

                    Anyway, the question is, why did the BBC quote Saviano? Perhaps they do not mind that he is a plagiarist, the same as they do not mind that Biden is a plagiarist. Or is there some other reason?
                    By the way, my research tells me that the United States has much cleaner air than England. That is significant, given the size of your tiny country. Even your beloved Wikipedia agrees.
                    I’ll let you find the link yourself since you are so very fond of them.

      2. Nathanville profile image89
        Nathanvilleposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Yep, the Polar vortex (climate change) over the USA seems to be getting worse each winter; with this Christmas being the worst on record. 

        https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 … in-the-us/

        1. tsmog profile image85
          tsmogposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          In contrast, living in the San Diego area of Southern California, yesterday for the Christmas family get-together it was 80ºF (27ºC). It remained warm through to late evening with an onshore breeze from the ocean. Nice!

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
            Miebakagh57posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            In my part of the world, the (Niger Delta), the temperature is still around 23*C.                                 But it's sunny, and warm at night. The cool breeze from the ocean is comforting in the day time. Merry Christmas everyone. And a happy  New Year!

            1. tsmog profile image85
              tsmogposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              Thanks! Enjoy!

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                Miebakagh57posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Tsmog, you're welcome.

          2. abwilliams profile image65
            abwilliamsposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            We have cold weather in Florida right now, but we have had cold weather before. We had snow flurries in '77, that was something different! Heard there were a few flurries on Christmas day in a couple areas.
            Sometimes we have cool weather, sometimes cold (to where we might hit the freezing mark) but most often, it's between warm and hot.
            It's a mixed bag; but that's the weather for you!

            1. peterstreep profile image79
              peterstreepposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              Extreme weather has become the norm. (cold or warm) and the climate is seriously disturbed, thanks to human activity (Industrialization)
              It is not normal weather behaviour. For tens of thousands of years, there was a moderate climate where homo sapiens could thrive. Not anymore. The climate is seriously wrong if you look at a weather time line. And the reason is the extensive use of fossil fuels. It is human-made.



              https://hubstatic.com/16293110.png



              https://hubstatic.com/16293111.png

            2. tsmog profile image85
              tsmogposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              Though it was like a summer day on Christmas for us and yesterday too, the mornings have been frigid. That plays with my sinuses. We're expecting rain for a about a week now and brrrr . . .

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                Miebakagh57posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Rains? That woutd be about the same as Nigeria, my country.                                    Normal rainfall is usually began in late March and early April. Climate crisis has altered the partner.

          3. Nathanville profile image89
            Nathanvilleposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Wow, good to hear you're enjoying some nice weather.  It' not too bad here in Bristol, England either; for this time of year.  At the moment 7am (not even dawn yet) it's already 5ºC (41ºF), and due to reach 11ºC (52ºF) by this afternoon.  Quite a contrast to how the weather used to be here before the 1990s, when each winter it would be around freezing point and snow each winter up to 6 inches deep - since the 1990's our winters in Bristol have become far warmer and wetter, and almost never any snow; the climate change is very noticeable here.

            1. tsmog profile image85
              tsmogposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, climate change has affected us too. In general, it is a lot warmer, and most significant is the drought we have been experiencing in the southwest. And, the wildfires too.

              Drought in the US Southwest is the worst in recorded history by LiveSciece
              https://www.livescience.com/united-stat … in-history

              A Closer Look: Temperature and Drought in the Southwest  by the U.S. EPA
              https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/southwest

              1. Nathanville profile image89
                Nathanvilleposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Yep, the same here; data just released shows that this year (2022) has been the highest average annual temperature in the UK since records began e.g. every single month in 2022 (except December) had an higher average monthly temperature on record since the record was last broken in 2014.

                And likewise, in England we’ve now get the most significant droughts, heatwaves, storms, floods and wildfires as regular events (almost annually now), when until just a couple of decades ago they were rare occurrences.  This year, which had the hottest heatwave on record, was also hit by numerous devastating wildfires across large swathes of England; whereas, 20 years ago England almost never had wildfires.

                The annual cost in the damage being caused by anthropogenic climate change must be running into the $billions.

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                  Miebakagh57posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Climate crises have significantly affected many countries of the world, including the poles.
                  The polar ice s are melting and thus increasing the volume of water in the seas, rivers, and certain lakes that has outlets to rivers.
                  What I learned some decades ago in my Geography class couldn't be true today.
                  Cold lands are getting warmer, and warm lands experienced cold. The circle will go on and on.
                  I'll not be surprised if Nigeria, my country, began to produced polar bears! You know what I mean.

                  1. Nathanville profile image89
                    Nathanvilleposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    Yep; and it will only get worse.

    13. peterstreep profile image79
      peterstreepposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Is climate change a threat to our existence?
      Yes.


      https://hubstatic.com/16422644.jpg

      Scientists have delivered a “final warning” on the climate crisis, as rising greenhouse gas emissions push the world to the brink of irrevocable damage that only swift and drastic action can avert.

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of the world’s leading climate scientists, set out the final part of its mammoth sixth assessment report on Monday.

      The comprehensive review of human knowledge of the climate crisis took hundreds of scientists eight years to compile and runs to thousands of pages, but boiled down to one message: act now, or it will be too late.

      The UN secretary general, António Guterres, said: “This report is a clarion call to massively fast-track climate efforts by every country and every sector and on every timeframe. Our world needs climate action on all fronts: everything, everywhere, all at once.”

      Source: Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late

    14. peterstreep profile image79
      peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Globally, June 2023 was the warmest June since directly measured instrumental records began in 1850, breaking the record previously set in June 2022. In addition, this June exceeded the previous record by 0.18 °C (0.34 °F), a surprisingly large margin, well outside the margin of uncertainty.

      Sourse : June 2023 Temperature Update - Berkeley Earth


      https://hubstatic.com/16620357_f1024.jpg

      1. tsmog profile image85
        tsmogposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Just to add something. Yesterday, 07/15/23, here about 30 miles north of San Diego, California it was 80ºF (26.6ºC) by noon. It got up to 102ºF (38.9ºC) by 2:30 pm or so. Oh yeah, we are 20 miles inland from the coast of the Pacific. It is supposedly a heat wave that will go away soon. The average temperature for July is 88ºF (31ºC) cooling down to 63ºF (17ºC) at night.

        1. peterstreep profile image79
          peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, it's crazy and the influence of El Niño is just starting. Next year will be worse as the after-effect of this sea anomaly takes a bit and is not immediately felt...
          The sea temperature is of charge at the moment.
          This is the Mediterranean at the moment, but the Atlantic is crazy too.

          https://hubstatic.com/16620540_f1024.jpg

    15. Sharlee01 profile image90
      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Is climate change a threat to our existence?

      How much time do we have left as a civilization? The timeframe for the impact of climate change on human civilization is uncertain and depends on various factors, and which scientific study you want to believe.   Predicting an exact timeline is challenging for science.

      What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change?  President Biden has taken significant steps to address climate change, such as rejoining the Paris Agreement and implementing various policies to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency, and emissions reductions. His administration has set ambitious climate targets and aims to transition the United States towards a clean energy future. However, opinions on his policies may vary depending on individual perspectives and political leanings. As well as which scientific study a given individual leans towards. In my view, yes Biden has committed to combat climate change with many promises, and lots of money. However, I have seen few of his promises implemented thus far. Let's just say his plan, needs a better plan... He has put the cart before the horse.

      How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics? The level of knowledge about climate change policies and basic economics varies widely among the general population. Some people may have a good understanding of the challenges posed by climate change and the policies being implemented to address it, while others might have limited awareness or even skepticism about the issue.

      Do I believe Al Gore?  Yes, Al Gore is a prominent advocate for addressing climate change and raising awareness of its impacts.  He talks the talk but does not walk the walk... Not one of his long-time predictions has come to fruition. In my view, he does do his homework but leans to the most extreme scientific studies. At this point, he represents himself as an odd angry man when he speaks At Davos John Carry and Gore (In my view) were off the hinges, and did not make much sense.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pReLPjXgBs  Two guys that need to step back and let scientists do the predicting.

      What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are highly regarded international body that assesses scientific information related to climate change.   They take into account reports based on comprehensive evaluations of the latest scientific research and provide insights into the state of the climate.

      The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations, responsible for international public health.  My comment is negative about this organization. I will keep it to myself.

      What do you think about solar panels and wind energy? Solar panels and wind energy are essential components of the renewable energy mix. They offer some advantages as clean and sustainable energy sources: However, ultimately here in the USA, many forests are being chopped down to accommodate the battery-run farms. Trees scientifically have been proven to be out freeing to rid the earth of emissions. In my view, batteries and all that goes into manufacturing them here or around the world are a huge threat to our soil. Not sure if these big brains considered we need soil to produce what we eat. Food and water substrains life.   We can't even handle riding the planet of the battery we use at this point. It's laughable to think we could handle the tons and tons of batteries that would be needed to support Solar and wind power. And the poison chemicals that will be minded to build these solar and wind saviors --- That's a very ugly story --- But Biden has plans to let Africa worry about that...

      Here is what we are told ---  Wind energy involves using wind turbines to generate electricity. The wind is a renewable resource that produces no greenhouse gas emissions during electricity generation, making it an environmentally friendly alternative.

      But has anyone told of the poisoning of our soil and water? Maybe dig deep into that... But be ready for frustration Google is not friendly to that side of Wind and Solar.

      Another thought, one that flys over the heads of many ---   it's essential to address challenges that we have in regard to solar and wind ---  That would simply be Mother Nature, sun, and wind ... (the fact that these energy sources depend on weather conditions,  grid integration, and energy storage to maximize their potential as part of a sustainable energy transition.  Biden as I said puts the horse before the cart.   Our grid is old, and can't actually run as efficiently as it did 10 years ago. We have weather patterns that solar and wind could leave us high and dry for electricity.  We need more refined technology in regard to being able to utilize wind and solar. First how to save the earth from the poison of batteries.
       
      So, at this point, in my view, a lot more thought needs to go into the new craze of wind and solar. And we sure as hell need some bigger minds running the show.

      1. Nathanville profile image89
        Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        An interesting read; and sure we need more R&D (research and Development); much of which is taking place in Britain here and now (especially in Scotland), and in other countries in Europe and around the world – We could certainly do with more commitment to R&D in America.

        However, we are also in a situation of a ‘ticking time bomb’, where we don’t have the luxury of time to contemplate the best solutions; the climate crisis is happening here and now, and the longer we take to combat the root causes of the problem (namely excess burning of fossil fuels) the worse the situation will get.   So we have to make the best of what we’ve got now to combat climate change, which for Britain is wind power (almost exclusively off shore, around the British cost where it’s almost always windy because of for example the Gulf Stream and westerly winds etc.  In Britain wind-power already accounts for half our electricity supply, and we are on course for there to be enough wind-power to meet the domestic needs for electricity by 2035.

        And yes, batteries have their environmental problems and issues.  In that respect R&D is taking place in Northern England to develop more environmentally friendly batteries; and for storage of surplus energy generated by our windfarms out at sea, Scotland is at an advanced stage of R&D for commercially upscaling Green Hydrogen e.g. using sea water to convert surplus wind-power to green hydrogen for storage, and then converting green hydrogen to electricity when needed, with the by-product being water.

        This was the stage Austria was at almost 10 years ago in its development of wind-power to Hydrogen as a means of storing surplus green energy (green battery).  https://youtu.be/my_EjR7zgu8

        The heatwave you’ve experienced in America this year is just a taster of what’s to come; we’ve had intensive and frequent heatwaves in Europe for over a decade now, and every year, or every other year previous record temperatures are being broken – Last year was the hottest year on record in Europe, and this year has become the hottest year on record in Europe.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Question -- Are you not fearful about the amount of forest areas being cut to give room for wind farms? Science has well-proven trees that clean the air, and the ecco system will be badly disturbed here in the US removing forests for wind farms. 
          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 … 0benefits.

          https://hubstatic.com/16633374.png
          This website is very informative.
          https://climateataglance.com/climate-at … heatwaves/

          Charts don't support some of what is being reported here in the USA in regard to heat waves.

          This is a very interesting article in regards to the USA problems that scientists feel could occur using wind power.
          https://scitechdaily.com/wind-farms-cau … _article=1

          1. profile image56
            Annegrayposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Deleted

            1. Nathanville profile image89
              Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Duh, in Britain, the wind farms are not built on land, they are built out at sea, so no trees are cut down to make way for them; besides in responsible countries like the UK such things are Government regulated to prevent such harm being done to the environment e.g. in the UK you need planning permission from government to build wind or solar farms.

              Of course I’m concerned about the amount of forest cut down each year; but it’s only irresponsible countries, with relaxed planning permission laws, that allow such development without consideration to the Environment; beside most trees are not cut down for windfarms or solar farms – far more trees are cut down for private profit of the land that has nothing whatsoever to do with solar or windfarms in countries where the government have little or no regard for the environment; and you'll find that most European countries are a lot more responsible than that – So I suggest you re-check your sources.

              Besides, FYI; the UK Government has an ambitious polity to plant more trees, not cut them down.

              The UK currently has around 3 billion trees, and currently the UK Government scheme around 120 million new trees per year are being planted in the UK.

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                This is very informative. I like the UK Government deals.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image90
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                We have had many reports in the US that Scotland is aggressively cutting down trees.
                https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 … -scotland/

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                  Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I think the 'compensatory planting elsewhere' scheme is a good idea.

                  For a million tree feel, three million or more to be plant could be a good responsibility. This will make people or companies to take good care of natural environments all the time.

                  Decades ago, during the Nigeria 'Operation Feed The Nation period', the Saharan Desert, was encroaching and scorching the Northern parts of Nigeria.

                  The then Nigeria's Federal Government of Military General Olusegun Obasanjo, launched the planting of many trees. That help prevent most of the countries of Northern Nigeria being turned into a desert region to date.

                  But that schema was not related to power sourcing. But it help anyway to prevent famine and hunger.

                2. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  16 million trees chopped down in Scotland. That is an obscene amount, and  so unnecessary when all is said and done.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                    Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, in my view Scotland was scarfed to benefit England from needing to chop away at their tress...

                    1. Nathanville profile image89
                      Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Again, we are back to the ‘Devil is in the Details’:

                      Firstly, the 15.7 million trees that were cut down on Scotland since 2000 were all replaced with new trees as part of the planning consent; and in that same time period the Scottish Government has planted 500 million new trees in Scotland.

                      Secondly, Scotland is not part of England, Scotland is a separate country – And Scotland generates a surplus of Renewable Energy and benefits from selling some of its surplus Renewable Energy to England (Exporting it to England).  Scotland exports (sells) 32% of the Renewable Energy it produces to England e.g. a large chunk of its surplus energy.

                      The rest of the surplus Renewable Energy Scotland produces is converted to ‘Green Hydrogen’ which is used in various ways, including:-

                      •    To run all local government vehicles and public transport buses in the Scottish city of Aberdeen; and

                      •    Green Hydrogen made from surplus Scottish Renewable Energy is also used to power their ferry service between the Scottish islands and mainland Scotland.

                      So Renewable Energy is proving to be a very profitable business for the Scottish economy, creating wealth and jobs, and good investment opportunities.

                      Scotland: World's first hydrogen powered seagoing ferries https://youtu.be/p4fyk_7meZg

                      Aberdeen, Scotland's Hydrogen Strategy - Leading the UK in H2 https://youtu.be/XBJAM1epr5c

                  2. Nathanville profile image89
                    Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Prima facie, for a left-wing socialist Government like the SNP (Scottish National Party), who have a reputation for being very pro-green, such action would appear to be disgraceful, and unforgivable.

                    However, the ‘Devil is in the Details’:

                    When you delve deeper, and look at the full facts, it’s not as shocking as it looks:

                    Yes, the Scottish SNP Government has allowed 15.7 million trees since the year 2000 to be cut down to make way for inland windfarms in Scotland.  BUT, part of the conditions imposed on the ‘planning consent’ for the windfarms was that the developers had to replace the trees they cut down with an equal number of new trees:  Thus maintaining the status quo.

                    In addition the ‘Coilltearachd agus Fearann Alba’ (Forestry and Land Scotland) (a Scottish Government Department) have planted more than 500 million trees since the year 2000.

                    1. profile image0
                      savvydatingposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Why are you repeating yourself? Do you use AI to automatically generate responses?

                3. Nathanville profile image89
                  Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Prima facie, for a left-wing socialist Government like the SNP (Pàrtaidh Nàiseanta na h-AlbaScottish) (Scottish National Party), who have a reputation for being very pro-green, such action would appear to be disgraceful, and unforgivable.

                  However, the ‘Devil is in the Details’:

                  When you delve deeper, and look at the full facts, it’s not as shocking as it looks:

                  Yes, the Scottish SNP Government has allowed 15.7 million trees since the year 2000 to be cut down to make way for inland windfarms in Scotland.  But, part of the conditions imposed on the ‘planning consent’ for the windfarms was that the developers had to replace the trees they cut down with an equal number of new trees:  Thus maintaining the status quo.

                  In addition the ‘Coilltearachd agus Fearann Alba’ (Forestry and Land Scotland) (a Scottish Government Department) have planted more than 500 million trees since the year 2000.

                  I haven't replied earlier because I only got back from holiday last night.

              3. peterstreep profile image79
                peterstreepposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Apperently Scotland is an incredibly irresponsable country.


                One of the European governments that boasts the most about its green commitment is the nationalist of Scotland. And one of its ministers has just learned that since 2000, the government, led by the separatists of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in the last 16 years, approved the logging of 15.7 million trees on 7,858 hectares of publicly owned land, namely Forestry and Land Scotland.


                Scottish official admits almost 16M trees that capture carbon have been CHOPPED DOWN for WIND FARMS

                1. CHRIS57 profile image60
                  CHRIS57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I ran this Scotland issue through my usual fact-check scheme.
                  This is the output (in German):
                  ..
                  Um Platz für 21 Windkraftanlagen zu schaffen, soll Schottland „gerade“ 14 Millionen Bäume abgeholzt haben. Das ist falsch. Die Bäume wurden nicht kürzlich, sondern innerhalb von 20 Jahren gefällt. Mehr als 270 Millionen neue Bäume kamen in diesem Zeitraum dazu. ...
                  https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/ … -gefaellt/

                  14 mill. trees were felled over the past 20 years to give room for windturbines. Within that period of time, some 270 mill. trees were planted.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                    Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    If 270 million were divided by 14 million trees felled, then the result speaks well. That is, for every million trees felled, 19 million were planted.

                    This will show responsibility. A responsible government is a good government. Others will then like to tread in the path.

                  2. peterstreep profile image79
                    peterstreepposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I read the article (German is fine with me) and stand corrected.
                    And it's comparing the 14 million trees (not 16 million) which are planted over a 20-year time span.
                    With 272 million newly planted trees....
                    Here the article from the Herald:
                    14m trees have been cut down in Scotland to make way for wind farms

                    I agree Chris that these kind of "news" items are dangerous and can easily be misread and taken out of context.

                    1. CHRIS57 profile image60
                      CHRIS57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      It is always difficult with numbers. I am not sure were the numbers come from and allow myself to have doubts. That is for the 14 million and the 270 million trees.

                      Scotland has an area of 77900 squarekm. That means in english and american terms: 14 trees per acre, no matter downtown Glasgow or somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

                      And just imagine: I just generously assume a field consumption of 500 acres per windturbine. For 21 turbines that is ?? For for these 1.050 acres how many trees were cut down? 14 million?

                      And just imagine: 270 million trees in 20 years that is some 37.000 trees per day or 2,3 seconds for 1 newly planted tree. And that is 24/7.
                      I wonder how many tree nurseries have to involved in this undertaking.

                      I think someone messed up with the zeros and no journalist, fact-checker ever applied common sense to this.

                      Anyways, seems to be a perfect example of the word that supposedly Winston Churchill said." I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself"

                2. Nathanville profile image89
                  Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Yep - prima facie, for a left-wing socialist Government like the SNP (Scottish National Party), who have a reputation for being very pro-green, such action would appear to be disgraceful, and unforgivable.

                  However, the ‘Devil is in the Details’:

                  When you delve deeper, and look at the full facts, it’s not as shocking as it looks:

                  Yes, the Scottish SNP Government has allowed 15.7 million trees since the year 2000 to be cut down to make way for inland windfarms in Scotland.  BUT, part of the conditions imposed on the ‘planning consent’ for the windfarms was that the developer had to replace the trees the cut down with an equal number of new trees:  Thus maintaining the status quo.

                  In addition the ‘Coilltearachd agus Fearann Alba’ (Forestry and Land Scotland) (a Scottish Government Department) have planted more than 500 million trees since the year 2000.

            2. Nathanville profile image89
              Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              World’s largest offshore wind farm is currently under construction off the coast of England, and will be operational by 2026:  https://youtu.be/8bMc3viR3uE

        2. CHRIS57 profile image60
          CHRIS57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          As i pointed out earlier in my comments, this climate change debate and its push for renewable energy is becoming more and more a financial treat. No politics needed.

          It simply makes sense to invest into renewables, either on your private home to foster off grid mentality and save money at the same time or to invest into large wind or solar farms.

          I don´t understand what chopping down trees has to do with batteries and renewables, especially not in not very populated areas of North America, at least compared to crowded Europe.

          Here in G. i am currently developing and investing into a 2MWp solar system on the open field with an east-west orientation of panels. New developments came up with bifacial panels that harvest energy from both sides of the panel. Put the panels upright to face east-west to harvest early in the morning and in the evening and you get a delicious business case and at the same time reduce then need for battery storage.

          If you want, then work yourself through this paper:
          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … a%3Dihub#!

          What Tim has descibed with the electricity pricing in southern California is valid for every region on our planet. Peak times are early in the morning and in the evening. If you can generate electricity at peak times you can sell at high prices, fairly simple i would say.

          The USA has the advantage of size, of multiple time zones. If sun is at full strength on the east coast, excess electricity could be sold to sleepy California in the morning and vice versa in the evening. But that would require high performance long distance electricity grids. Something like DC-electricity lines. https://www.emf-portal.org/en/cms/page/ … portal.org

          Technology for renewables is developing fast and creates efficient, very cost effective solutions. Just keep politics out of it. The market will decide and has already decided.

          1. peterstreep profile image79
            peterstreepposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            You need politics Chris.
            If you let the "free" market decide where to put panels then the only factor looked at is money and not the environment.
            About chopping down trees.
            In my area in Spain, near Valencia, the plan is to chop down 300.000 trees (almond,olive, carob) to make way for huge solar plants.
            This is a plan that we as a community have just submitted allegations to.

            Destroying ecosystems and habitats for eagles and many other wildlife. But not only that. Trees are the best way to fight climate change.
            To cut down trees to make way for solar panels does not make the solar panels renewable.
            You need politics to regulate where the solar parks are being built. On areas like abandoned mine quarries, or unused industrial estates. The best is simply on the roofs of houses car parks etc.
            This needs to be regulated by the government. If you ask the multinationals to do what they want they will not give a damn about the nature and the climate crisis, only about their shareholders.

            1. CHRIS57 profile image60
              CHRIS57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              I don´t object to guidelines.
              If a guideline is: No chopping off trees, it is fine with me.
              If a guideline is: 200 m left and right of railroad tracks are free to set up solar systems, it is fine with me.

              Physical and technological restrictions in combination with financial (business case) restrictions already pose a downselect of potentional areas: You won´t find wind turbines in Mexico City, simply because air is too thin and efficiency is low. On the other hand offshore and coastline locations are perfect for windfarms.

              Solar panels in the Arctic are not a good idea. Sun is too low even in summer and nil in winter.

              Making renewables avaible on a non private scale will require infrastructure. And that infrastructure is not there yet. I would (i do ) buy stocks of companies that do eletric power infrastructure. And, excuse me, i don´t care if they are multinationals or not.

            2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
              Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Peter, I agreed with you completely. Politics is a in must in such issues.Government can't keep quite for investors to do what..

          2. Sharlee01 profile image90
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I mentioned trees due to having a natural ability to help clean the air.
            https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/storie … en%20down.

            I mentioned batteries for two reasons they are dirty to manufacture, and we are dependent on nations that mine poison minerals to supply us with the poison minerals we have laws against mining.

            I actually just jumped in to offer a rudimentary view and answer Savvys questions.

            The science is very technical in regard to solar and wind, as well as the pros and cons.  I will leave this one to the scientists.

            So, when adding solar to your home, is China not making your panels, and does the polluted atmosphere from manufacturing the panels stay over China? So, it would seem you are doing your part, but China is not. So how in the end will our atmosphere be cleaner? China will gear up production to sell worldwide and even become dirtier than it presently is.

            Panels will become cheaper, but will our atmosphere/ global warming get better or worse? I note that Germany is making solar panels, but having some problems. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/02/11732473 … ope%20did.

            1. CHRIS57 profile image60
              CHRIS57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              I agree that photosynthesis takes CO2 out of the air, that applies to all plants and trees in particular. In fact with the rise of the CO2 level apparently forest growth in the northern hemisphere has increaded.

              In G. we have significant forest growth and in volumetric measures growths is 40% higher than what is removed from the forests (by commercial use, natural decay..). This may change to worse over the years to come, but i am not really concerned about what we do our forests in developed countries. This does not mean that local projects are good per se. Some may tamper with nature.  But statistics generally show another picture.

              Concerning China and solar panels: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chi … 023-02-16/
              China is exporting roughly 30% of its production capacity, the majority is used domestically.

              My take is that 100% peak solar is equivalent to 15% hydropower. If China has set up 85 GWp solar in 2022, that is some 13 GW of hydropower or more than 6 Hoover Dams in solar alone. China has to solve its issues with pollution, but their are on a good path from my personal experience in China in the past 2 decades.

              From google maps: A small town in the north German plains. Roughly 7 MWp solar installed. Does it leave the impression of destroying nature?

              https://hubstatic.com/16633503_f1024.jpg

              1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                I  brought up forest due to living in a Merto Detroit area. My home backs up against a very large protected park that has a huge forest. We have air quality checks frequently, and our Annual Average 23 AQI.  In Detriot, on any given day it is three times that value. So, I am a real tree advocate.

                I truely support new forms to promote clean energy, but I think we need a logical plan to bring it to fruition, and make sure it does not end up making things worse.

                In the 50s my aunt and her husband moved to Texas when so many were moving to make money off of liquid gold --- She became very wealthy overnight. But look where we have ended up.  This new green energy will make billionaires. But have we really investigated the what-ifs?

                1. CHRIS57 profile image60
                  CHRIS57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Interesting, i had to look up the AQI in my city realtime : Currently 18 downtown and 17 in the surroundings.
                  Found this gimmick:
                  https://www.iqair.com/de/air-quality-map

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                    Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, your air quality is very good. Thank you for the link, great find.

                    1. CHRIS57 profile image60
                      CHRIS57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      I used the link to look at China.

                      Except for Tibet and Inner Mongolia the situation looks fairly well. In general few dangerous or hazardous spots. At least not much difference to the US and Canada situation.

                      It appears that the impact of fires in Canada reach all the way down to New Jersey and beyond.