Kevin Copeland: Alarmist predictions of environmental doom
In Brodie Farquhar’s letter to the editor, “Colorado could save billions,” his assertion that climate change is caused entirely by humans is a simple exaggeration of our planet’s complex eco-system.
Stating facts gleaned from an article from Vox, he would like us to believe this publication’s spin on the alarmist prediction of environmental doom as unbiased journalism. The modeling and financial scenarios presented only add up within the shell game of Vox’s far left bio-sphere. See mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/ to derive your own conclusions.
“Environmentalarmists” — not miss-spelled, made it up — and progressive socialists infiltrating the Democratic party have the audacity to compare their ideas for reforming our infrastructures with massive mobilizations of convoluted green energy on the scales of WW2, Manhattan Project and moon landing, to save the world.
This is the rhetoric of New York’s far left darling, Democratic socialist Cortez, who’s now predicting the end of the world in 12 years if the U.S. alone doesn’t immediately commit economic and social suicide thereby joining the Venezuelan debacle.
When considering factual energy economics, the share of renewables compared to existing fuels remains low because sun and wind are effective at producing electricity but realistically insufficient for automobiles, shipping, airlines, trains, agriculture, commercial fishing, heavy industry and manufacturing to name a few.
They’re oblivious to the fact that, were we to eliminate coal, natural gas and oil in favor of higher-cost renewables, electricity costs would soar, harming the demographic they benevolently claim to support. Lower-income and minority communities are disproportionately disadvantaged by higher energy costs, spending an average 7.2 percent more of income on utility bills, 2.3 percent more than higher income households.
The exorbitant costs of maligned green policies are demonstrated by comparing two industrial economies — the U.S. vs. Germany, which leapt into renewables with enthusiasm, imposing hefty taxes on fossil fuels. The electrical costs for American households last year was $129 per megawatt, whereas Germany’s was $343.59.
I also would like Mr. Farquhar to explain how the arid West and Midwest fly-over states would benefit from geothermal, hydro or tidal energy? Nuclear wasn’t even mentioned. “Not in my backyard,” they say.
All things considered, the continued applications of modern clean burning, economically obtainable energy from our rich resources of coal, natural gas and oil is the only logical answer for maintaining our vast complex energy needs, without needlessly spending billions.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.