Marine Heatwaves Leading To Rapid Hurricane Intensification Before Landfall

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

For hundreds of years parts of the Earth stay warmer and are compensated by colder parts of the Earth for a very balanced climate state. That is not how the atmospheric works. Ocean currents transport warm and cold across the hemispheres over times scales of decades. The Earth stuck in different "modes" for centuries it just off. It doesn't jive with fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, convection, cloud cover or even radiative transfer. Somehow today everything is different now because of a minor GHG CO2 which needs amplifying effects of H20 to really impact the climate. This is just not logical. So by this logic, insolation increases a little bit, cloud cover decreases a little bit by natural causes which warms the Earth a little, then more evaporation takes places and enhances this warming. The enhanced warming, then leads to more evaporation and more H20 which further warms the planet and so on. What is the breaking mechanism? There has to be something or the Earth's climate goes off the rails. Anyway, a minor GHG with a small absorption band, CO2 does not drive the climate.  Total solar output,  convection, cloud cover, water vapor and ocean currents do. CO2 is a small component. Without climate models, you can't prove that it does.  The paleo studies assume a larger role of CO2 which is unproven. The tiring fact that CO2 did not drive the climate back then based on ice core data should have put this all to rest more than a decade ago. But the climate change gravy train had too much momentum and money to stop so it continues today. The insanity grows more and more so that all weather, and anomalies are basically now affected by this minor trace gas through a feedback mechanism. But this narrative is working...the politicians are listening and this could fundamentally change the western world into a socialist hell. Cheap energy is good for the environment. Again, look at Haiti where there is barely a tree standing because they use charcoal and wood for cooking and heat. Life expectancies are very low. Poverty means destruction of the environment. In Venezuela, they are poached wild animals, birds and even eating their own pets to survive. Again, extreme poverty because of socialism is decimating their environment. People live shorter brutal lives. We don't want that in America. Going to renewables by 2035 would destroy our economy. And if you like the fact that countries like Haiti have minimal carbon emission why don't you move there? In fact, why do you folks even drive cars? You shouldn't use electricity either, or heat your home. I bet you can find a cave to live in and go back to the stone age. That would help and make you guys FEEL better.  

do you really consider nations like Canada and the UK socialist nations?  I mentioned it to people and they started laughing and mentioned how dumb the typical American is.  I see what they mean, whenever we had a foreign exchange student in one of our classes, they were smarter than 90% of the American students we had.

 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

There’s no empirical evidence that rapid adoption of renewable energy, for which costs of production have been falling rapidly relative to fossil fuels—cost developments that have already rendered coal economically nonviable—would mean economic destruction. If anything, insistence on the status quo is far more likely to ensure that sustainable competitive advantages in energy will emerge outside the United States. The opportunity costs of such an outcome would only add to the already high and growing costs related to fossil fuel externalities that are currently borne by society rather than the industries responsible for that pollution. In fact, compelling society as a whole to bear those costs leads to severe underpricing of fossil fuels, both in absolute and relative terms.

Had FDR had such limited confidence in American science, the U.S. would never have developed the atomic bomb ahead of Germany. Had JFK had such low confidence in the nation’s capacity to innovate, the U.S. would have resigned itself to Soviet domination in space. Had Reagan lacked confidence in the nation’s ability to replace CFC’s, Antarctica’s ozone hole would have continued to grow. All three cases were successful, because the nation’s leaders believed that its people, scientists, and industries could meet big challenges. 

Setting big challenges is not socialism. Socialism is defined by who owns the means of production. Instead,  big challenges framed more appropriately are big opportunities for those who dare to pursue them. 

A “can’t do” perspective stifles the dynamism that is the soul of creative destruction. Creative destruction in which innovation, which often leverages scientific advances, supplants earlier technologies and entrepreneurs displace established firms, are major reasons why living standards have advanced. 

Locking in the status quo would constrain progress. A world in which innovation ceases would produce stagnation. One in which energy innovation is discouraged by protecting the politically-favored industries responsible for the anthropogenic emissions driving climate change will face increased heat, more expansive wildfires, more intense storms, rising sea levels as Greenland’s and Antarctica’s ice continue to melt, shifts in agriculture, shifts in the zones in which tropical diseases spread, among other adverse developments. 

and we can add nuclear- particularly THORIUM BASED REACTORS!- to the mix.  It's safer than most people seem to think.

[donsutherland1]

23 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

and we can add nuclear- particularly THORIUM BASED REACTORS!- to the mix.  It's safer than most people seem to think.

I agree. I believe nuclear power is part of a solution toward moving away from fossil fuels.

[Bhs1975]

Even if we stop all emissions now we are still in big trouble. We need a massive draw down and solar blockage at this point.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/arctic-hasnt-warm-3-million-122739770.html

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, Bhs1975 said:

Even if we stop all emissions now we are still in big trouble. We need a massive draw down and solar blockage at this point.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/arctic-hasnt-warm-3-million-122739770.html

Unfortunately, even if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, the world has committed to additional warming from the present atmospheric concentration of such gases. In terms of the Arctic, prior to 1990 (1851-1989), the NSIDC extended ice record indicated only 1952 had a minimum extent value below 7 million square kilometers. After 1990,, such figures became routine. Then, as Arctic warming accelerated, things deteriorated. 2009 was the last year during which the figure stayed at or above 5 million square kilometers. It is possible that the world has now reached the point where the minimum extent values will routinely fall below 4 million square kilometers. If not, it will very likely happen this decade. The 2012 minimum figure will probably be surpassed this decade, as well.

[Bhs1975]

Unfortunately, even if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, the world has committed to additional warming from the present atmospheric concentration of such gases. In terms of the Arctic, prior to 1990 (1851-1989), the NSIDC extended ice record indicated only 1952 had a minimum extent value below 7 million square kilometers. After 1990,, such figures became routine. Then, as Arctic warming accelerated, things deteriorated. 2009 was the last year during which the figure stayed at or above 5 million square kilometers. It is possible that the world has now reached the point where the minimum extent values will routinely fall below 4 million square kilometers. If not, it will very likely happen this decade. The 2012 minimum figure will probably be surpassed this decade, as well.

The positive feedbacks are very strong and we could easily see no sea ice at all year around within the next century or two just like during the Pliocene.

[skierinvermont]

17 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Going to renewables by 2035 would destroy our economy. 

This is a lie and you know it is. As I have explained 7 times to you over the last month, wind and solar energy cost approximately the same as natural gas, and much less than coal. This is why wind and solar are already being chosen by the free-market and comprise nearly 50% of new electric generation capacity over the last 5 years. In other words, when a power company has to decide what new power to build, they choose either wind or natural gas, and occasionally solar, because these are the cheapest sources. With a modest investment at the federal level, this process could be sped up dramatically without any increase in electric costs (with a small cost to the taxpayer). It would dramatically improve our ozone and PM2.5 pollution in addition to reducing future climate change. Countries like Germany have already succeeded in this with only 39% of energy coming from fossil fuels, while maintaining a very high standard of living.

Your Haiti and economic destruction scare tactics are despicable, fly in the face of the most basic facts (that have been shared with you 8 times now), and reveal your complete lack of objectivity. Your lies do not fool or convince anybody.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

 

[tamarack]

If "going to renewables" means total elimination of fossil fuel use by 2035, IMO that would be a bridge too far - 70-80% seems more doable for this non-expert.  The transportation nut will be a hard one to crack.  I see moving to renewables for electricity generation as doable but creating the necessary technology and distribution system seems a bigger hurdle.  For one thing, we'd want/need batteries in vehicles that charge a lot faster than today - it's moving in the right direction and I'm confident there's lots of research but wonder how far (and soon) it can go.  We might need a nationwide effort in the same general manner as creating the interstate highway system.   

[skierinvermont]

2 hours ago, tamarack said:

If "going to renewables" means total elimination of fossil fuel use by 2035, IMO that would be a bridge too far - 70-80% seems more doable for this non-expert.  The transportation nut will be a hard one to crack.  I see moving to renewables for electricity generation as doable but creating the necessary technology and distribution system seems a bigger hurdle.  For one thing, we'd want/need batteries in vehicles that charge a lot faster than today - it's moving in the right direction and I'm confident there's lots of research but wonder how far (and soon) it can go.  We might need a nationwide effort in the same general manner as creating the interstate highway system.   

Yup, 70-80% seems about right by 2035 based on the technology available today and how other countries have been progressing. My guess (based on little actual research other than what's happening in other countries and the prices I see) is that 70-80% could be achieved for 50-100B per year in federal investment. The next 10% might cost as much as the first 60% to force by 2035.

[bluewave]

 

[donsutherland1]

16 minutes ago, bluewave said:

 

This behavior fits the economic literature quite well. Status quo firms are often complacent. Others, pioneer new approaches and make incremental improvements. Over time, the new approaches are feasible and lower costs than status quo approaches and offer comparable or superior value. Once that happens, these new approaches become disruptive innovations and most of the firms that had committed to the status quo see their market position dramatically weakened. At that point, even if they can imitate the production of the disruptive technology, their cost curves are consistent with the earlier technology and the cannot compete effectively or profitably.

[chubbs]

I am more optimistic than I was 5-10 years ago. The competitive advantage and market value of fossil fuels is shrinking every day. Article below just a sign of the times.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiWioiKl5jsAhXMmVkKHTx9DA0Q0PADegQIBRAH&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2F39a70458-d4d1-4a6e-aca6-1d5670bade11&usg=AOvVaw0kgkvZ52x74xrKD1tWQrG9

 

 

 

[bluewave]

11 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

This behavior fits the economic literature quite well. Status quo firms are often complacent. Others, pioneer new approaches and make incremental improvements. Over time, the new approaches are feasible and lower costs than status quo approaches and offer comparable or superior value. Once that happens, these new approaches become disruptive innovations and most of the firms that had committed to the status quo see their market position dramatically weakened. At that point, even if they can imitate the production of the disruptive technology, their cost curves are consistent with the earlier technology and the cannot compete effectively or profitably.

We will need to see a significant  increase in public-private partnerships in order to make an energy transition possible.

https://www.ecowatch.com/high-powered-public-private-partnerships-essential-to-expediting-renew-1882132714.html

Public-private partnerships have been around since the start of the U.S. and exist at all levels of government. Basic science and technology has historically been funded by the U.S. government and taken place in national and university laboratories. When the technologies matured, some were released for commercial use. Perhaps the best example is the personal computer, which has shrunk significantly in size since the 1970s and has dramatically increased in computing power. A product used by billions of people worldwide began as an investment by the U.S. federal government, in order to develop better missile guidance systems for the U.S. Department of Defense and smaller on-board computers for NASA's space program.

At some point, technology will take over. Fossil fuels will eventually be driven from the marketplace by something better and cheaper, but we first need the investment in basic and applied research to make that happen. The transition from an economy based on the one-time use of finite resources to one that relies on renewable resources requires a sophisticated, high-powered public-private partnership. The commitments made by Gates and the White House are a good start and there are many other signs that the transition from fossil fuels has begun. The speed of that transition, however, will depend on creativity, consensus and cash to be completed.

 

[blizzard1024]

20 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

wind and solar energy cost approximately the same as natural gas,

Wind and solar are not nearly as efficient as natural gas. Natural gas probably is the best source of energy at the moment as it burns much cleaner than oil or coal.  Wind has to be blowing and the sun needs to be shining for wind and solar. That isn't always the case. Plus storing energy from these sources is problematic. Also the materials to make wind farms and solar farms takes energy. Where does that energy come from? Burning fossil fuels. The electric car mandate in CA will be a disaster. If the fleet of electric cars reaches 25% the amount of power needed to charge these vehicles will surpass the ability of renewable energy to power these vehicles. Fossil fuels will be needed to power these electric cars. Fossil fuels are positively correlated with an increased standard of living. Cheap reliable power leads to prospering economies. If we go to renewables too soon, it will be a disaster. I don't care how many times you tell me wind and solar are cheaper. That is your opinion. If they were cheaper and efficient the free market would embrace them to increase profits. Energy companies would adopt this new untapped energy source and make a fortune. Remember CFCs? Dupont made alternatives to CFCs and made a fortune selling the alternatives. Energy companies would do the same thing if it were profitable. But it obviously isn't. 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

Wind and solar are not nearly as efficient as natural gas. Natural gas probably is the best source of energy at the moment as it burns much cleaner than oil or coal.  Wind has to be blowing and the sun needs to be shining for wind and solar. That isn't always the case. Plus storing energy from these sources is problematic. Also the materials to make wind farms and solar farms takes energy. Where does that energy come from? Burning fossil fuels. The electric car mandate in CA will be a disaster. If the fleet of electric cars reaches 25% the amount of power needed to charge these vehicles will surpass the ability of renewable energy to power these vehicles. Fossil fuels will be needed to power these electric cars. Fossil fuels are positively correlated with an increased standard of living. Cheap reliable power leads to prospering economies. If we go to renewables too soon, it will be a disaster. I don't care how many times you tell me wind and solar are cheaper. That is your opinion. If they were cheaper and efficient the free market would embrace them to increase profits. Energy companies would adopt this new untapped energy source and make a fortune. Remember CFCs? Dupont made alternatives to CFCs and made a fortune selling the alternatives. Energy companies would do the same thing if it were profitable. But it obviously isn't. 

The implicit assumption of little or no increase in production of renewable energy to support the idea that California’s electric car mandate would be a disaster is almost certainly not the most likely outcome. Overall, California’s revised mid-range estimate for annual energy consumption growth over the next 10 years is 1.3% per year.

Cost advantages currently exist for fossil fuel companies, but not all for market-based reasons. First, the federal government subsidizes oil and gas activities with roughly $10 billion per year in assistance, through tax expenditures that include energy production tax credits, energy investment tax credits, expensing of exploration/development costs, and even modest royalty payments to coal companies.

Second, fossil fuel companies do not have to pay any of the cost associated with their carbon-related externalities. This leads to a significant underpricing for the companies, as society winds up bearing those costs through increased costs of disaster recovery, mitigation for rising seas, etc. Put another way, taxpayers wind up paying for the costs of pollution they did not cause.

Until those factors are addressed, the reported production cost figures come with a huge asterisk. The numbers are skewed, because part of the fossil fuel companies’ expenses are paid not by the companies, but by the taxpayers/society.

[blizzard1024]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Until those factors are addressed, the reported production cost figures come with a huge asterisk. The numbers are skewed, because part of the fossil fuel companies’ expenses are paid not by the companies, but by the taxpayers/society.

I always have disagreed with subsidies for any energy industry and I would agree with your assessment that fossil fuel companies shouldn't be getting subsidies.  They make billions and billions in profits.... 

[skierinvermont]

On 10/3/2020 at 6:12 AM, blizzard1024 said:

Wind and solar are not nearly as efficient as natural gas. Natural gas probably is the best source of energy at the moment as it burns much cleaner than oil or coal.  Wind has to be blowing and the sun needs to be shining for wind and solar. That isn't always the case. Plus storing energy from these sources is problematic. Also the materials to make wind farms and solar farms takes energy. Where does that energy come from? Burning fossil fuels. The electric car mandate in CA will be a disaster. If the fleet of electric cars reaches 25% the amount of power needed to charge these vehicles will surpass the ability of renewable energy to power these vehicles. Fossil fuels will be needed to power these electric cars. Fossil fuels are positively correlated with an increased standard of living. Cheap reliable power leads to prospering economies. If we go to renewables too soon, it will be a disaster. I don't care how many times you tell me wind and solar are cheaper. That is your opinion. If they were cheaper and efficient the free market would embrace them to increase profits. Energy companies would adopt this new untapped energy source and make a fortune. Remember CFCs? Dupont made alternatives to CFCs and made a fortune selling the alternatives. Energy companies would do the same thing if it were profitable. But it obviously isn't. 

As the numbers I posted just showed, everything you just wrote is a lie. Wind and solar are equally as cheap and efficient as natural gas, and getting cheaper, and the free-market does embrace them equally with natural gas already.

[skierinvermont]

On 10/3/2020 at 7:59 AM, donsutherland1 said:

The implicit assumption of little or no increase in production of renewable energy to support the idea that California’s electric car mandate would be a disaster is almost certainly not the most likely outcome. Overall, California’s revised mid-range estimate for annual energy consumption growth over the next 10 years is 1.3% per year.

Cost advantages currently exist for fossil fuel companies, but not all for market-based reasons. First, the federal government subsidizes oil and gas activities with roughly $10 billion per year in assistance, through tax expenditures that include energy production tax credits, energy investment tax credits, expensing of exploration/development costs, and even modest royalty payments to coal companies.

Second, fossil fuel companies do not have to pay any of the cost associated with their carbon-related externalities. This leads to a significant underpricing for the companies, as society winds up bearing those costs through increased costs of disaster recovery, mitigation for rising seas, etc. Put another way, taxpayers wind up paying for the costs of pollution they did not cause.

Until those factors are addressed, the reported production cost figures come with a huge asterisk. The numbers are skewed, because part of the fossil fuel companies’ expenses are paid not by the companies, but by the taxpayers/society.

Yes this a good point Don. Even without assigning a cost to the pollution of coal and natural gas, wind and solar are still equal in cost. If you assign a cost to the pollution caused by natural gas and coal, wind and solar are far cheaper economically.

[LibertyBell]

On 10/2/2020 at 7:50 PM, bluewave said:

 

is this because of cost?

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/3/2020 at 9:59 AM, donsutherland1 said:

The implicit assumption of little or no increase in production of renewable energy to support the idea that California’s electric car mandate would be a disaster is almost certainly not the most likely outcome. Overall, California’s revised mid-range estimate for annual energy consumption growth over the next 10 years is 1.3% per year.

Cost advantages currently exist for fossil fuel companies, but not all for market-based reasons. First, the federal government subsidizes oil and gas activities with roughly $10 billion per year in assistance, through tax expenditures that include energy production tax credits, energy investment tax credits, expensing of exploration/development costs, and even modest royalty payments to coal companies.

Second, fossil fuel companies do not have to pay any of the cost associated with their carbon-related externalities. This leads to a significant underpricing for the companies, as society winds up bearing those costs through increased costs of disaster recovery, mitigation for rising seas, etc. Put another way, taxpayers wind up paying for the costs of pollution they did not cause.

Until those factors are addressed, the reported production cost figures come with a huge asterisk. The numbers are skewed, because part of the fossil fuel companies’ expenses are paid not by the companies, but by the taxpayers/society.

who decided that taxpayers should be paying for the fossil fuel industry?  the politicians who decided that should be ousted immediately and the fossil fuel industry should be banned from lobbying (add NRA and PhRMA to that)

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/3/2020 at 8:12 AM, blizzard1024 said:

Wind and solar are not nearly as efficient as natural gas. Natural gas probably is the best source of energy at the moment as it burns much cleaner than oil or coal.  Wind has to be blowing and the sun needs to be shining for wind and solar. That isn't always the case. Plus storing energy from these sources is problematic. Also the materials to make wind farms and solar farms takes energy. Where does that energy come from? Burning fossil fuels. The electric car mandate in CA will be a disaster. If the fleet of electric cars reaches 25% the amount of power needed to charge these vehicles will surpass the ability of renewable energy to power these vehicles. Fossil fuels will be needed to power these electric cars. Fossil fuels are positively correlated with an increased standard of living. Cheap reliable power leads to prospering economies. If we go to renewables too soon, it will be a disaster. I don't care how many times you tell me wind and solar are cheaper. That is your opinion. If they were cheaper and efficient the free market would embrace them to increase profits. Energy companies would adopt this new untapped energy source and make a fortune. Remember CFCs? Dupont made alternatives to CFCs and made a fortune selling the alternatives. Energy companies would do the same thing if it were profitable. But it obviously isn't. 

it's already close to 25%....I see quite rapid advancements in battery storage that will make the majority of cars electric by 2030, let alone 2035.

 

[LibertyBell]

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/2/2020 at 9:00 AM, Bhs1975 said:

Even if we stop all emissions now we are still in big trouble. We need a massive draw down and solar blockage at this point.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/arctic-hasnt-warm-3-million-122739770.html

Indeed- we need a negative carbon footprint, I posted a study about that

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

is this because of cost?

 

Scaling up fast enough and meeting expanding global energy demand is quite a challenge.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/12/24/72/our-pathetically-slow-shift-to-clean-energy-in-five-charts/

By most measures that matter, clean energy had a stellar decade.

The cost of large wind and solar farms dropped by 70% and nearly 90%, respectively. Meanwhile, renewable-power plants around the world are producing four times more electricity than they did 10 years ago.

Similarly, electric vehicles were barely a blip at the outset of the 2010s. But automakers were on track to sell 1.8 million EVs this year, as range increased, prices fell, and companies introduced a variety of models.

But the swift growth in these small sectors still hasn’t added up to major changes in the massive global energy system, or reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. So far, cleaner technologies have mostly met rising energy demands, not cut deeply into existing fossil-fuel infrastructure, as the charts that follow make clear.

That’s a problem. Cutting emissions rapidly enough to combat the increasing threats of climate change will require complete overhauls of our power plants, factories, and vehicle fleets, all within a few decades.

 

[LibertyBell]

3 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Scaling up fast enough and meeting expanding global energy demand is quite a challenge.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/12/24/72/our-pathetically-slow-shift-to-clean-energy-in-five-charts/

By most measures that matter, clean energy had a stellar decade.

The cost of large wind and solar farms dropped by 70% and nearly 90%, respectively. Meanwhile, renewable-power plants around the world are producing four times more electricity than they did 10 years ago.

Similarly, electric vehicles were barely a blip at the outset of the 2010s. But automakers were on track to sell 1.8 million EVs this year, as range increased, prices fell, and companies introduced a variety of models.

But the swift growth in these small sectors still hasn’t added up to major changes in the massive global energy system, or reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. So far, cleaner technologies have mostly met rising energy demands, not cut deeply into existing fossil-fuel infrastructure, as the charts that follow make clear.

That’s a problem. Cutting emissions rapidly enough to combat the increasing threats of climate change will require complete overhauls of our power plants, factories, and vehicle fleets, all within a few decades.

 

Poetic justice will be when massive hurricanes take out fossil fuel infrastructure, which is actually built near coastal areas.

[blizzard1024]

11 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

The cost of large wind and solar farms dropped by 70% and nearly 90%, respectively. Meanwhile, renewable-power plants around the world are producing four times more electricity than they did 10 years ago.

This is a HUGE threat to our environment, way more than a small rise in global temperature.  I fear a landscape riddled with solar and wind farms decimating natural habitats. What a disaster this is going to be!  And because a minor GHG CO2 will cause a small rise in global temperature. This actually benefits mankind. This renewable energy push is too early and will cost us dearly. Energy rates will soar and the environment will suffer. It's not green, its anti-human and anti environment.  Save the Planet? what a joke. 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is a HUGE threat to our environment, way more than a small rise in global temperature.  I fear a landscape riddled with solar and wind farms decimating natural habitats. What a disaster this is going to be!  And because a minor GHG CO2 will cause a small rise in global temperature. This actually benefits mankind. This renewable energy push is too early and will cost us dearly. Energy rates will soar and the environment will suffer. It's not green, its anti-human and anti environment.  Save the Planet? what a joke. 

even if you dont believe that climate change is an existential threat, you should know that fossil fuels lower air quality, fracking causes earthquakes (via wastewater injection) and a general increase in pollution.

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is a HUGE threat to our environment, way more than a small rise in global temperature.  I fear a landscape riddled with solar and wind farms decimating natural habitats. What a disaster this is going to be!  And because a minor GHG CO2 will cause a small rise in global temperature. This actually benefits mankind. This renewable energy push is too early and will cost us dearly. Energy rates will soar and the environment will suffer. It's not green, its anti-human and anti environment.  Save the Planet? what a joke. 

All of the hyperbolic claims about environmental degradation caused by renewable energy technologies, which are continuing to improve, pales in comparison to the colossal environmental degradation caused by dumping carbon into the atmosphere. If one were to attach a cost to the carbon pollution, ExxonMobil alone would be responsible for more roughly $9.5 billion in annual carbon pollution (124 million metric tons x $70 per ton). The emissions are from Statista for 2018. The cost is the midpoint between estimates made by Nordhaus ($40 per ton) and Stern (just over $100 per ton). That’s just one giant polluter. Worse, it is a free rider that does not have to bear the costs of its pollution. Society currently bears those costs resulting in an artificial suppression of the cost of oil, resulting in greater quantity demanded than would otherwise be the case (translating into more pollution than would otherwise be the case).

Moreover, it ignores pollution related to production, accidents, etc. It also does not consider opportunity costs. The opportunity costs of delaying the shift to clean energy are very high (even if all uncertainties about the consequences of climate change are assumed to be relatively benign, which hasn’t been the experience so far as uncertainties begin to be resolved).

[blizzard1024]

45 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

All of the hyperbolic claims about environmental degradation caused by renewable energy technologies, which are continuing to improve, pales in comparison to the colossal environmental degradation caused by dumping carbon into the atmosphere.

Carbon pollution? CO2 is not pollution. If it is, then we should stop breathing.  I noticed everyone is ducking the potential environmental degradation from wind and solar. A disaster. 

[blizzard1024]

And one more thing, when the price of energy goes sky high because of wind and solar which now dots the landscape and degrades the environment, people resort to burning wood because they can't afford to heat their homes. Deforestation goes up. We have been seeing this in Europe. It's a huge problem in the 3rd world when they don't have access to cheap fossil fuels. So they raze their environment causing massive deforestation and mass extinctions. So yeah the green new deal or anything similar before the technology and cost supports it is the biggest threat to our environment in so many ways. If you are an environmentalist like me don't let the name fool you. It is a disaster for our wildlife and natural habitats.