Is it really green?

[Lamb]

If you destroy one part of the environment to have green energy...is it really green? This article writes of a massive solar panel project that cleared land half the size of Manhattan to put in solar panels. How is that protecting the environment to destroy so much of it?

Massive East Coast solar project generates fury from neighbors

 

[tango]

If you're into single-issue politics all sorts of things make sense. You know, it's bad to burn stuff because atmospheric pollution so you dump it in the sea. There you go, problem solved. Except it isn't, you just moved it somewhere else.

People who drive electric vehicles and crow about being "zero emission" tend to miss the point that the electricity doesn't come out of thin air. It comes from a power station. And even if they are the really righteous types who use electricity "from green sources" they still just shift problems elsewhere. Solar cells require rare earth minerals that have to be mined and shipped, wind turbines only work when it's sufficiently windy, and so on.

And, as you highlighted here, you can destroy a huge area in order to claim you're saving the environment. If there's enough sunlight to make solar power viable it makes more sense to put solar panels on houses and generate power locally, than to destroy areas of woodland to create a single centralised plant.

 

[vince284]

The end justifies the means...

 

[tango]

The end justifies the means...

What exactly is "the end" in this case? And are there any means that aren't justified in the pursuit of whatever "the end" is?

 

[vince284]

What exactly is "the end" in this case? And are there any means that aren't justified in the pursuit of whatever "the end" is?

The exact end is what the architect, author, designer decided it would be, the means are only limited to such initiator. I can't answer for them, since I am not them, I can only speculate.

 

[tango]

The exact end is what the architect, author, designer decided it would be, the means are only limited to such initiator. I can't answer for them, since I am not them, I can only speculate.

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make, if you say "the end justifies the means" but then can't say what "the end" or "the means" are. Unless you're assuming the people behind this monstrosity figure "the end justifies the means" and that clearing a swathe of woodland is an acceptable means to whatever end they are trying to accomplish.

 

[vince284]

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make, if you say "the end justifies the means" but then can't say what "the end" or "the means" are. Unless you're assuming the people behind this monstrosity figure "the end justifies the means" and that clearing a swathe of woodland is an acceptable means to whatever end they are trying to accomplish.

I wasn't making a point but an observation of the human condition. I was not judging the means nor the goal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Jason76]

Well, I'm not opposed to all green energy - only when the green energy is truly fake - and it isn't always - or otherwise immoral. Well, a fake example would be encouraging electric cars - when knowing the power simply comes from coal burning plants.

OK, I don't see the harm in the OP's example - as far as it being "fake". I think Christians have sort of a thing against the environment - or anything else deemed "PC" - and that's often troubling.

 

[tango]

Well, I'm not opposed to all green energy - only when the green energy is truly fake - and it isn't always - or otherwise immoral. Well, a fake example would be encouraging electric cars - when knowing the power simply comes from coal burning plants.

OK, I don't see the harm in the OP's example - as far as it being "fake". I think Christians have sort of a thing against the environment - or anything else deemed "PC" - and that's often troubling.

The OP's example was about clearing an area of trees (big plants that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) as part of a plan to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Maybe I just find it easier to see a problem with that.

 

[Lamb]

Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit’

Although I don't like the flaming...I do agree with what was written that if we all went to cutting down trees to warm our homes we'd have some desperate times ahead of us.

I think that if we truly want to stop wrecking the earth that a new technology should come into play. One that saves our earth without destroying it. More good than harm.

 

[psalms 91]

I wopuld suggest wind and solar for sure

 

[Lamb]

I wopuld suggest wind and solar for sure

Did you see the video where oil was coming out of the wind turbines making a huge mess? There's another video of strong winds wrecking the turbines and causing millions of dollars in damage to the equipment. I like the idea of wind usage but a new method has to be created.

 

[psalms 91]

Funny we have had them in this area for years and we dont have those problems, perhaps the video is trying to steer people in a certain direction

 

[tango]

I wopuld suggest wind and solar for sure

Wind makes at least some sense, although personally I think it would make a lot more sense to put smaller turbines on individual properties than big ones centrally. If nothing else it means the problem of transporting the electricity largely goes away.

Solar is great in theory but at present needs all sorts of rare elements that have to be mined and transported.

Both suffer because neither are guaranteed. If it's not windy the turbines don't generate anything. If it's not sunny enough solar panels don't generate anything. So you still need something to work with when natural energy doesn't deliver the goods.

The idea of getting rid of fossil fuels completely is a grand idea but it's not going to happen in a hurry. If the government decides to simply throw unlimited amounts of cash at its new pet project the chances are what will happen is a few very well connected individuals will become incredibly rich, a few corporations will do incredibly well out of it all, and the end result is that the laws of physics will still represent the same barrier they are now. Throwing untold amounts of money at a problem with little accountability generally isn't a good way to achieve much, and typically governments (of any persuasion) aren't renowned for their abilities to deliver the goods on large scale projects.

 

[Jason76]

Land in Manhattan doesn't need to be cleared for solar panels. Why not just do that to some area outside NYC and then pump the power in? I don't get it!

 

[SamFlopy]

Is it really green

is green architecture really good to look at? im not so sure, i guess when you imagine it i see hippies, will this stigma ever be removed??

 

[tango]

Land in Manhattan doesn't need to be cleared for solar panels. Why not just do that to some area outside NYC and then pump the power in? I don't get it!

Or just put a load of them on the buildings already there.

Of course the trend of making office blocks out of steel and glass, in a place where they sit in the full glare of the sun, isn't particularly clever. Gardeners call places like that greenhouses, and they are known for getting warm. So then you need loads of power to run the air conditioning in an attempt to keep it cool. For good measure places like that are often open-plan so if one person is sick the air conditioning picks up their germs and blows them all over everybody else.