What Irked You Today?

[Danno]

That's just plain old good common sense, regardless of where your beliefs fall on the climate change debate.

But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that human activity is increasing the Earth's overall average temperature, and that we can halt and/or reverse that trend by implementing tighter regulations. The problem is, we can pass all sorts of rules and regulations here, but we can't do anything about the world's two largest polluters–India and China–and all the other developing countries that have no laws in place regarding pollution or emissions.

It's as if you personally go on a diet because there are too many obese people in the world. Your diet (and good intentions) isn't going to make a bit of difference in the overall scheme of things, because your diet isn't going to affect anyone else. And you alone dieting won't change the fact that too many people are obese.

If anyone thinks humans can ever put some sort of international climate treaty in place that everyone will adhere to, they're hopelessly naive.

That's pretty much my point, as well. A grain of sand won't change the beach or the dune, one way or the other.

[Danno]

The ultimate climate change irony is that "Mr. Climate Change" himself sold his TV network to an outfit that is funded by petro-dollars...

Hypocrite.

Rich hypocrite.

AMEN! That's one of those guys I was talking about., too. Amazing how much damage those types can do without blinking an eye . . . while they are lining their own pockets.

[Harry P.]

Some interesting info from the British Antarctic Survey website (italics aded by me):

"By measuring the ratios of different water isotopes in polar ice cores, we can determine how temperature in Antarctica and Greenland has changed in the past. The oldest ice core we have was drilled by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) from Dome C on the Antarctic plateau. It extends back 800,000 years and shows a succession of long, cold ‘glacial’ periods, interspersed roughly every 100,000 years by warm ‘interglacial’ periods (of which the last 11,000 years is the most recent).

From the air in our oldest Antarctic ice core, we can see that CO₂ changed in a remarkably similar way to Antarctic climate, with low concentrations during cold times, and high concentrations during warm periods. This is entirely consistent with the idea that temperature and CO₂ are intimately linked, and each acts to amplify changes in the other (what we call a positive feedback). It is believed that the warmings out of glacial periods are paced by changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, but the tiny changes in climate this should cause are amplified mainly by the resulting increase in CO₂ and by the retreat of sea ice and ice sheets (which leads to less sunlight being reflected away).

Ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings. The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime."

What that says to me is not only that the Earth's climate has been constantly changing, but that there have been very abrupt swings in climate in the past, along with dramatic changes in CO₂ ... long before the world became industrialized. In other words, abrupt swings in the Earth's climate have occured without man possibly having had any influence on them.

So why then are some so absolutely convinced that any current climate change is due to man's activity?

[Danno]

Instead of our society holding this endless "climate change-no climate change" debate, we'd be far better off if we all (believers, non-believers and undecideds) took sensible, achievable steps to limit emissions and pollution as much as we can, without turning our entire economic/industrial system upside-down just to placate a relative handful of climate change zealots.

That means serious attempts to bring solar and wind power into the mainstream, so that prices come down to a point where those sources would be economically feasible to use on a much larger scale... not just as trendy "boutique" energy sources for a select few.

There's no reason why every home in America couldn't have both solar panels and a small wind turbine or two on the roof. Maybe that wouldn't supply all of the energy needed, but it would obviously supply some. If solar panels and small wind turbine generators were priced at a consumer-friendly level and available at your local home center, they'd sell by the millions. Who wouldn't want to reduce their energy costs? But for some reason those products still don't exist on a consumer-friendly, DIY level.

Since you mention this, Harry, it brings to mind one of my favorite amusements: Watching the wackos go at each other at cross-purposes.

There are now, according to news reports I've seen the last few days, two different and brand new eco/enviro-wacko groups germinating. One group is vehemently anti-turbine wind generator. And the other is just as over-zealously anti-solar panel farm. How can anybody be against those alternative energy sources?

Well, the anti-turbine gang is all a-flutter because the evil wind generators seek out and chop up the occasional innocent bird who flies too close to the rotating guillotines. The wackos want them ALL banned before they slice and dice the entire winged population of the planet!!!

And, not to be outdone, the anti-solar panel gang is incensed because the solar panel farms have been incinerating hapless birdies who fly over the reflective surfaces of the solar panel arrays (much like the eco-wackos probably did to ants with magnifying glasses when they were kids). The wackos want them ALL banned before they torch whatever airborne creatures are left after avoiding the turbines!!!

So those two groups are squaring off against those who support alternative energy sources. Like we've said before, there are wacko extremists on every side of every issue.

Long live moderation!

[Harry P.]

I guess we also need to ban airplanes. Don't birds get sucked into the turbines all the time?

And cars. I mean, haven't enough bugs been killed by windshields already?

[Harry P.]

Well, the anti-turbine gang is all a-flutter...

I read a story once where the elites on one of those posh east coast resort islands, who of course are all big proponents of alternative energy, freaked when there was talk about putting up a wind farm within sight of their oceanside views.

Horrors!

NIMBY...

[Danno]

So why then are some so absolutely convinced that any current climate change is due to man's activity?

They've been indoctrinated their entire lifetimes into the 'blame man first' mantra.

It's part of the narcissistic 'there can be no supreme entity greater than I, man' theorem.

There is also a subgroup that has been emerging the past couple of decades; the 'blame America first' doctrine.

They all drink similar power Kool-Aid.

[Danno]

I guess we also need to ban airplanes. Don't birds get sucked into the turbines all the time?

And cars. I mean, haven't enough bugs been killed by windshields already?

All selfish, man-made contrivances to assuage our insatiable craving for dastardly convenience. All enemies of the exalted, man-less perfect planet.

Re: the bugs. Please don't give the wackos any ideas.

I read a story once where the elites on one of those posh east coast resort islands, who of course are all big proponents of alternative energy, freaked when there was talk about putting up a wind farm within sight of their oceanside views.

Horrors!

NIMBY...

Typical. Was algore involved?

[Harry P.]

Typical. Was algore involved?

No, not in that case. It was more the Martha's Vineyard types...

[ratdoggy]

Irks me is all the whining about first world problems......

[Harry P.]

Typical. Was algore involved?

Details excerpted from online sources...

Cape Wind: The Legal Battle between Green Energy and NIMBY

Introduction

The Cape Wind Energy project is a proposed offshore wind farm to be located in Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts. Cape Wind Associates are the owners of the proposed 130 wind turbines that will generate an average of 170 megawatts of electricity, supplying three quarters of the energy needs of the residents of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Island. Since the launch in 2001, the project has gone through multiple federal, state, and regional permits, environmental impact assessments, and public hearings. The project is shrouded in controversy and serves as an example of the conflict between renewable energy projects and public sentiment of “not in my back yard” (NIMBY).

In 2001, Cape Wind requested a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Following NEPA requirements, the USACE issued a Notice of Intent, held several public hearings, and created the first environmental impact statement (“Executive,” 2008). In the meantime, the 2005 Energy Bill placed the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in charge of offshore energy regulation.

In 2008, the MMS completed an even more comprehensive version of the draft EIS, in which it considered the impact on wildlife such as bats, birds, shellfish, fish, and protected species. The study also considered impacts on wave action, air temperature, and the effects of scouring. Finally, the study considered the economic and social impacts on commercial fishing, recreation, tourism, and aviation. For each impact, the study identified mitigating actions to reduce the effects caused by the project. For example, wind turbines would be spaced at least 2,066 feet apart to enable shipping vessels, fishing boats, and birds to navigate between them and avoid collisions. In addition, a NOAA Fisheries observer would be present during construction and will have the authority to halt work if a protected species enters the work safety zone. As a third example, the wind turbines would be painted marine gray to reduce visibility from shore and by recreational boaters.

Cape Wind applied for the necessary approval and worked to meet the requirements of both state and local governments. After multiple attempts by the Cape Cod Commission to halt the project, the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Sitting Board created a “super permit” which negated the need for further local or state permits, studies, or public hearings.

Opponent Viewpoints

The primary organization that opposes Cape Wind is the non-profit Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. The Alliance is not against wind power in general, but Nantucket Sound as the location for the project. “The Alliance supports wind power as an alternative energy source. However, we oppose the proposed Cape Wind plant in Nantucket Sound due to potential adverse economic, environmental, and public safety impacts." The Alliance points out that Nantucket Sound, Martha’s Vineyard, and Cape Cod are renowned for scenic beauty and wildlife. The area attracts six million tourists per year, which accounts for more than half of the region’s economy.

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound launched numerous legal challenges to halt the project. In 2010, the Alliance filed a lawsuit indicating that federal approvals violated NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In 2010, Nantucket Sound was also listed on the National Register of Historic Places when two Native American Indian tribes indicated that the presence of wind turbines would impede their spiritual connection with the Sound. Individuals opposed to Cape Wind can join the opposition by completing a form on the Alliance web site. Several prominent private landowners, such as Senator Ted Kennedy and Walter Cronkite, who would have views of the wind farm, joined the opposition effort. In February 2011, Republican Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown asked the U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for further public review sessions and environmental impact studies.

Proponent Viewpoints

Those in favor of the Cape Wind project cite environmental benefits, health benefits, and fewer oil tankers passing through Nantucket Sound. The Cape Wind project would supply energy to 420,000 homes and meet the energy needs of 75% of the residents of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket. Compared to coal, Cape Wind’s renewable energy would reduce emissions per year by 1.5 million tons of CO2, 2,699 tons of SO2, and 9,813 tons of NOx. This translates into improved human health and benefits the ecology due to fewer air and water pollutants. Because 45% of the region’s current energy is supplied by the oil and natural gas Canal Power Plant, Cape Wind has the added benefit of reducing oil shipped through Nantucket Sound. Since 1976, there have been two major tanker spills in Nantucket Sound spilling over 7.7 million gallons of oil, killing wildlife and shutting down shell fish (U.S. Coast Guard, 2007).

Cape Wind supporters believe that the opposition is a case of “not in my back yard” (NIMBY). Of the two viable options that the MMS identified, the opposition suggests moving Cape Wind to Tuckernuck Shoal (Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, n.d.). However, the MMS states that the environmental impacts of the Tuckernuck Shoal location “would be greater with respect to avifauna, subtidal resources, non-ESA mammals, fish and fisheries,” but that “generally fewer viewers would see the project.”

Cape Wind proponents conclude that the main reason for opposition of the project is that a small number of elite and wealthy homeowners are trying to move the project out of their line of sight, despite the benefits the project has for the public. A 2007 survey of 600 people found that 61% of Cape Cod residents and 86% of Massachusetts residents support the project (Opinion Research Corporation, 2007).

NEPA Perspective

After the decade-long effort, the Cape Wind project has complied with all NEPA requirements, as well as all federal, state, and regional requirements. The MMS concluded that the project owners properly defined the purpose and need for the project and filed all necessary permits. As required by NEPA, the MMS notified the public, conducted multiple public input sessions, identified and explored alternative sources of energy and locations, and conducted a full and complete EIS, including actions to mitigate potential impacts. The remaining action is for the USACE and the EPA to grant final permits, after which the project will finalize financing and begin construction.

Conclusion

Cape Wind is highly complex because it must adhere to federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. However, the political dynamics of the project location created even greater complexity and debate. The proposed location is preferred for generating wind power and minimizes environmental impact. Yet, it is a location of natural beauty and historic value that supports a tourism-driven economy. The opposition attempted to use environmental regulations to halt the project or move it elsewhere. This is an example of NIMBY supported by elite homeowners in sight of the wind turbines. All communities can make a case for why a project should be located elsewhere. If this is allowed, renewable energy projects like Cape Wind will struggle and many will fail. “If the NIMBYs prevail, wind power is doomed. And that would be a tragedy."

[southpier]

I think if someone lives in a place where there is no scenic vista, they would be unable to grasp the grand views afforded by some areas. to erect something as imposing as a wind machine is beyond any logic. isn't there wind in places that are already visually blighted? Detroit comes to mind. it would then thrive as a migration of wind-workers revitalized the city and surrounding suburbs.

leave the Vineyard alone! I can see it from my house.

[Danno]

" . . . wind turbines would be spaced at least 2,066 feet apart to enable shipping vessels, fishing boats, and birds to navigate between them . . . "

It makes perfect sense that Ted Kennedy and his neighbors would be opposed to wind turbines. I guess they have a lot of flying fishing boats around there. After all, they used to have submarining Oldsmobiles at Chappaquiddick, didn't they?

[Harry P.]

I think if someone lives in a place where there is no scenic vista, they would be unable to grasp the grand views afforded by some areas. to erect something as imposing as a wind machine is beyond any logic. isn't there wind in places that are already visually blighted? Detroit comes to mind. it would then thrive as a migration of wind-workers revitalized the city and surrounding suburbs.

leave the Vineyard alone! I can see it from my house.

If you're going to build a wind farm to supply power to Nantucket and Mahthah's Vineyahd, it doesn't make much sense to build it in Detroit.

[Thatswhatshesaid]

If Coldplay plays the Super Bowl I'll vomit. They suck

[Harry P.]

If Coldplay plays the Super Bowl I'll vomit. They suck

Isn't the halftime show the time when you're supposed to go hit the john and then make a sandwich and grab a beer before the second half starts???

[Thatswhatshesaid]

True. But just the thought of it makes me sick. I hate Coldplay. Besides, what is better in HDTV, Chris Martin or Katy Perry?

[Harry P.]

True. But just the thought of it makes me sick. I hate Coldplay. Besides, what is better in HDTV, Chris Martin or Katy Perry?

I'll take KP any day. On TV or otherwise...

The way Chris Martin jerks around and shakes is so annoying.

[Tom Geiger]

If you're going to build a wind farm to supply power to Nantucket and Mahthah's Vineyahd, it doesn't make much sense to build it in Detroit.

I dunno. They were talking about doing a wind farm off the Jersey Shore.... many ill informed protesters... even after they said it would be far enough off shore that you wouldn't see it from land! Wind is clean energy there for the taking!

[Harry P.]

Wind is clean energy there for the taking!

Exactly. Free, clean, and endless. Same with solar. Why we aren't exploiting it to the max is beyond me.

[DynoMight]

Exactly. Free, clean, and endless. Same with solar. Why we aren't exploiting it to the max is beyond me.

Because no one can own the wind or sun. One of the reasons fossil fuels are still used to the extent that they are. People can own the oil and coal, but they can't own the wind or sun, you can't charge outrageous prices for the wind! That's why you don't see one or two in every town, no one can make tons of money off of selling wind. They can make tons of money selling coal and oil.

[Joe Handley]

What DynoMight said...........

[Ace-Garageguy]

Cost is always cited as the hold-back for widespread implementation of solar power installations.

BUT...very intelligent and PROFITABLE business models are already available for solar energy...based on a rather old idea. One particular company installs solar arrays on the roofs of buildings with no up-front costs and sells the generated power to the building owner AT RATES COMPETITIVE WITH CONVENTIONAL GENERATION, and puts the excess power back into the grid (excess power is sold to the local utility company). And they make a profit for the company and its investors. Look up SunEdison...(from wikipee:

• SunEdison offers customers access to solar power without financing the individual projects generating the power. SunEdison collects capital from investors and uses it to construct photovoltaic plants. The plants are operated by SunEdison after construction. Investors receive a cash flow from sold solar power, including subsidies from governmental organizations. The solar power is sold to commercial, government, and utility customers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue isn't that nobody "owns" the wind or the sun. The issue is that power-generation companies have been foot-dragging for many many years because that's what hidebound humans do...resist change for as long as possible, even if the change is entirely logical, easy, profitable and NECESSARY.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[southpier]

just like weed: once they figure out how to tax it and it'll be right next to the Jerk Daniels.

[slusher]

just like weed: once they figure out how to tax it and it'll be right next to the Jerk Daniels.

They always said weed kills brain cells...