Tuesday, March 29, 2016

"Green" Energy = NO Energy

by JASmius

JASmius Echo Syndrome strikes again, this time in the pages of Forbes magazine:

Why does the green movement oppose every practical form of energy?

There is only one answer that can explain this. Greens oppose every practical form of energy not out of love for the non-existent virtues of solar and wind energy, but because they believe practical energy is inherently immoral.

It’s in their philosophical DNA.

To “be green” means to minimize our impact on nature. In the green philosophy, the standard of value, the metric by  - which we measure good and bad is human non-impact — does an action make our environment more or less altered by humans?

If we take that idea seriously, then practical energy is not a good thing. [emphases added]

In other words, greenstremism is a pagan, humanophobic religion in which human beings themselves - us - are the devil (aside from the greenstremists themselves, of course), "nature" is "god," and consequently for "evil" to be defeated and destroyed, homo sapiens must be rendered extinct.  Except for the greenstremists, of course.

Context, as always, is ever the key.

If you're pro-human, as I and all of you tend to be, the graphs above, showing the unparalleled benefits and blessings of "carbon pollution," speak for themselves: enhanced life expectancy, greater prosperity, higher quality of life, the technological advances to cope with problems we encounter along that upward path, eventually paving the way for humanity to become a multi-planet "species"....all from industrialization, which has no effect upon global climate anyway compared to the enormously superior influence of the local star, whose energy we will eventually be able to harvest with those continued technological advances that greenstremists insist be abandoned and abolished.

The source of energy doesn't matter; the greenstremists are against all of it.  Fossil fuels are "dirty," nuclear fission is contaminative - but then windmills kill birds by the thousands, and a full-blown Dyson sphere to harvest solar energy would "clutter up the inner solar system" with man's "trash," "upsetting nature's cosmic balance" or some other such nonsense.  Nuclear fusion will produce energy in abundance once we solve the technological hurdles using nothing but water as fuel and helium as exhaust - what could be cleaner, right?  But greenstremists still balked and said no:

There are some quotes from a story in the Los Angeles Times called “Fear of Fusion: What if It Works?” Leading environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin: “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.”

Paul Ehrlich: Developing fusion for human beings would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”

Amory Lovins was already on record as saying, “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”

Yeah - like live and grow and prosper.  You could call greenstremists "traitors to humanity," for they sure appear to want us all to die for "nature's greater good," as though - and don't try to tell me this isn't an evolutionist concept - we're not part of nature.

Maybe it's sentience and intelligence greenstremists find so objectionable.  Which would make sense since they possess so little of either one.

Redundant case in point:

On Monday, the U.S. Geological Survey published for the first time an earthquake hazard map covering both natural and “induced” quakes. The map and an accompanying report indicate that parts of the central United States now face a ground-shaking hazard equal to the famously unstable terrain of California.

Some seven million people live in places vulnerable to these induced tremors, the USGS concluded. The list of places at highest risk of man-made earthquakes includes Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio and Alabama. Most of these earthquakes are relatively small, in the range of magnitude three, but some have been more powerful, including a magnitude 5.6 earthquake in 2011 in Oklahoma that was linked to wastewater injection. [emphasis added]

As somebody who lives two hundred miles from the Cascadia Subduction Zone, which is considered overdue for a doomsday seismic event that could exceed 9.0 on the Richter scale - or roughly several thousand times stronger than that "killer" wastewater injection quake in Oklahoma - the chances of which are estimated at one in three over the next fifty years, and as somebody who knows people who live in both Southern California, whose genuine earthquake hazards are universal common knowledge, and the Midwest near the New Madrid seismic zone, where the estimated likelihood of an 8+ quake in the next thirty years is 95%, allow me to say that I am grievously insulted by this so-called USGS "report" and its ludicrous and ignorant smearing of fracking with triggering "Big Ones".  I experienced a 5.6 quake twenty-one years ago; it was big enough to notice, but didn't so much as knock anything on the floor.  I also went through the 6.8 Nisqually quake of 2001, a deeper one felt over a correspondingly larger area.  It was several dozen times stronger, though it did no damage to my house.  From my recent research on the topic (given the persistent rumors of an impending Cascadia Subduction Zone event), where I live would feel level seven shaking ("very strong") on the twelve-level  Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, enough to smash everything in the house but not bring down the house itself.  This is the reality of living in a seismically active area where "the Big One" could happen at any time.  And before anybody comes back with, "Why are you living in a seismically active area in the first place," the answer is simple: (1) I was a homeowner before I ever learned of the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and (2) I haven't the means to move since my father sold his home on the other side of the Cascades a year ago.  So we play the hand we're dealt and continue with life, because there is no other choice.

One thing we do know for sure is that hydraulic fracturing does not and cannot trigger major earthquakes, which is precisely what the Obama U.S. Geological Survey is trying to imply, all in service to the cause of forcing us all to move back into caves with Moonwatcher, hoping the killer leopard doesn't show up each night to eat us.

And caves aren't the most seismically sound form of shelter, either.

It's a pity I don't own a seismic wave re-director, as now I would have a ready-made target when the "Big One" hits.

No comments: