Why Environmentalists Will Eventually Hate Renewable Power

solar farmThe proliferation of renewable energy will never please environmentalists. In fact, the more efficient and inexpensive energies like solar and wind become, the more environmentalists will fear and eventually hate them.

Currently, arguments against renewable energy are based on the accurate claim they are too inefficient to become widespread. The technology behind solar and wind power are just not where they need to be to justify widespread use.

In October 2014, data revealed the massive Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert fell well short of its anticipated output. During an eight-month period in 2013, the solar plant missed its goal by a whopping 40 percent.

Because of stories like these, many are reluctant to support large government subsidies for renewable energy projects. The lackluster performance of alternative energies have led several states to reconsider legislation requiring a portion of their energy to come from renewable sources. In January, West Virginia made headlines when the state ended its mandate in full.

The inability of alternative energies to compete with fossil fuels does not deter environmentalists. They see renewables as a solution to the problem of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and the climate change they say inevitably results from it. Their goal is to save Earth from climate disruption.

But what happens when renewable technology does become efficient enough to replace fossil fuels? What if another energy technology is developed that supplies us with abundant and pollution-free energy? The resulting scenario is one environmentalists fear the most: Civilization growth unconstrained by the threat of climate disruption.

This fear was exposed in 1989, when two scientists announced they produced excess energy through the process of cold fusion. This revelation, which turned out to be false, would have the potential to produce inexpensive and inexhaustible energy. People believed we were on the verge of creating free energy. This concept caused many environmentalists to show their true colors.

While people rejoiced at the prospect of free energy, author and activist Jeremy Rifkin was quoted by the Los Angeles Times saying, “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.” Rifkin envisioned a world filled with waste—a world where people were free to use up Earth’s resources.

Biologist Paul Ehrlich said, “[It’s] like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”

These environmentalists and many others reacted this way because the real threat, in their eyes, is human development and growth.

In the same article referred to above, environmentalists voiced concerns that abundant energy would open the door to an increase in population growth, the result being a “crowded earth.” This fear is still held today by environmentalists like Bill McKibben.

McKibben, considered to be “America’s most important environmentalist” by the Boston Globe, became a big name in the global warming debate in 1989 with the publishing of End of Nature. Since then, McKibben has written several more books about mankind’s impact on the environment, such as Maybe One: A Personal and Environmental Argument for Single Child Families.

In Maybe One, McKibben makes the case for potentially painfulpopulation control. Population control is necessary in the minds of many environmentalists like McKibben because large populations inevitably lead to more homes, office buildings, cars, shopping centers, and trash. This is why McKibben wrote in his two books Deep Economy (2007) and Eaarth(2010) that he did not want to see an increase in development but rather a “controlled decline.”

Environmentalists do not see fossil fuels and CO2 as a threat to mankind; they see mankind as a threat to the environment. Advocating for renewable energy is just an excuse to implement a constriction of fossil-fuel use and development across the world. If the time comes where renewable, clean, and abundant energies become a reality, environmentalists will surely withdraw their support in the name of protecting the planet.

Source

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (15)

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Just as we skeptics have been putting asterisks around “climate scientist”, we should also put them around “environmentalist” when referring to the likes of McKibben-et-al. IMO.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    If ‘environmentalists’ discovered a previously unkown group of primates that could compose and perform Bach-like symphonies, they would be beside themselves, and rope off an entire continent.

    Do these morons really think we are not as natural as a butterfly?

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    This story really cuts to the AGW core. Even [i][b]if[/b] [/i]somehow these Utopian “green” energy plans worked perfectly and pushed carbon based energy out of the market, [b]the AGW crowd would not be happy at all[/b].

    The entire purpose of this scam is to justify political, social, and economic reordering towards a Marxist styled global power structure – [i]forcing[/i] people to do things they would not do in a rational world. With the “crisis” solved the AGW planners would then have to invent another to claim power.

    This has never been about “clean” energy. It’s always been about socialist elites playing for power on the world stage.

    • Avatar

      Just Some Kid

      |

      That is truly nonsense. Take a step back to read your comment. That is all political frustration, and I’d go so far to say that it is completely misplaced.

      “These environmentalists and many others reacted this way because the real threat, in their eyes, is human development and growth.”

      That is putting a terrible spin on things. It’s not that human development and growth is bad, it’s that it usually tears up the environment, something environmentalists would like to protect.

      “Environmentalists do not see fossil fuels and CO2 as a threat to mankind; they see mankind as a threat to the environment.”

      Umm, did you not know this? The whole point of the environmentalist movement is to protect the planet and the delicate ecosystem we live in. It is for the love of the world around us that environmentalists want to halt the use of fossil fuels. They have a tendency to release CO2. Which tends to heat up planet. Which tends to disrupt and destroy ecosystems. It’s not that environmentalists want to help man-kind, its that they want to protect the environment, which just so happens to benefit man-kind as a happy side-effect.

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Your hysteria is based upon failed models Chicken Little Kid…

        According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:

        [i]“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. [b]The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more[/b], suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”[/i]

        http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

        Page 24, Middle column

        According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level[/b] and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.

        [i]He further admitted that in [b]the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming[/b], although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend. [/i]

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

        We are now past 18 years and counting.

        You really shouldn’t play with broken models, it makes you look retarded.

        [img]http://www.collectair.com/images/gulfhawkdime.jpg[/img]

      • Avatar

        GR82DRV

        |

        See folks, I told you it cuts to the core… As the kid displays, being exposed really hurts so he desperately needs to reset the argument to “humans are bad so put compassionate and intellectual superior Marxists in control to make things right”.

        “Political frustration”? – Yes, [u]exactly[/u]! [u]This is all about politics[/u], but as usual leftists can’t make their argument honestly and openly, instead they must hide behind a scam disguised as science.

        Thanks Kid for the perfect illustration.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Lets get a little more specific here. This is what is driving the phony science behind AGW. As published in [i]Forbes[/i], February 2013:

    [i]How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas:

    The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.

    A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

    Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

    Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

    In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

    Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”[/i]

    • Avatar

      Just Some Kid

      |

      Got some silly quotes there. From a different perspective, it looks like they are saying “even if global warming is all wrong, we should still use their policies because they happen to be much better for the environment.” Thing is, most environmentalists probably wouldn’t care about global warming either if it had no effect on the environment. Sunglasses and umbrellas aren’t harmful to the environment, so it no wonder you don’t see environmentalists trying to limit the use of them.

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Silly quotes?! 😆

        Is that the best you can do kid?

        You need to leave this discussionj to the adults.

        • Avatar

          Just Some Kid

          |

          Try reading below that.

          On a separate note, I’d think you’d be happy to “debate” with someone from the other side of the spectrum. I think it’s rather boring for a group of like-minded to keep telling each other they are right.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Great! Let’s get started…

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Go! 😆

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Hey GR82DRV! These are some of my favorite quotes from the Climate Communists…

      [i]”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”[/i]
      – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
      Stanford Professor of Climatology,
      Lead author of many IPCC reports

      [i]”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”[/i]
      – Christine Stewart,
      former Canadian Minister of the Environment

      [i]“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”[/i]
      – Prof. Chris Folland,
      Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

      [i]“The models are convenient fictions
      that provide something very useful.”[/i]
      – Dr David Frame,
      Climate modeler, Oxford University

      The very people who use kids like our recent ill informed visitor know that it is not about science, integritry, or reality. It is all a big lie that they intend to ride toward their agendas. Riding on the backs of fools.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    These lists of “silly quotes” are growing quickly as Marxists become more emboldened. They intended all along to transition the discussion toward the true intent of “social justice”,… by which they mean Marxism.

    As Socialist/Communist/Marxist nations inevitably devolved into tyranny and dysfunction they collapsed, leaving their leaders exposed for malfeasance. It’s no coincidence that they needed another way to sell their failed philosophies and they soon found refuge and cover in the environmental movement. (A phenomenon now known as “the watermelon effect”.)

    It’s a bitter irony that some of the most toxic wastelands in the world (Chernobyl et al.) were products of these same “environmental” leaders and their Marxist political legacies.

    • Avatar

      Just Some Kid

      |

      I hope you’re kidding. Political ideology has nothing to do with environmental policy. They can be used by eachother, but they are not inherently connected. You can be assured that the ratio of environmentalist that are socialist is the same as the ratio of the number of people in general that are socialist.

  • Avatar

    Jesse

    |

    We all ready have a totally reliable source of carbon-free energy and you guessed it, environmentalists don’t like it. It’s called nuclear fission.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.