• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Environmentalists: "De-Grow" The Economy???

Mike

Well-known member
This falls right in line with Buckwheat's policy on stifling growth. Fcked up.


Environmentalists are pushing a new way to deal with global warming and overpopulation: the U.S. needs to “de-grow” its economy.

What is “de-growth”? It means forcing people to work less to make them more equal, consume fewer goods and use less electricity. Think of it like camping, but for the rest of your life.

Environmentalists at the New Economics Foundation in London and the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C. argue that cutting the 40-hour work week and using less electricity is necessary. This includes a living wage requirement and a more progressive tax code.

“There’s no such thing as sustainable growth, not in a country like the U.S.,” Worldwatch senior fellow Erik Assadourian told Sierra Magazine.

“We have to de-grow our economy, which is obviously not a popular stance to take in a culture that celebrates growth in all forms,” he said. “But as the saying goes, if everyone consumed like Americans, we’d need four planets.”

De-growing the economy means working less and consuming fewer goods and electricity — the foundation of modern life. Most cheap, reliable electricity that businesses and homes rely to power their everyday needs comes from sources like coal, natural gas and nuclear power — which environmentalists argue are killing the planet.

“If we had a livable wage and could each work a 20-hour week,” Assadourian said, “we’d have time to choose more sustainable options that are also better for ourselves.”

With the world population projected to be 10 billion by 2050, Assadourian and others argue that cutting the work week would allow everyone to have a job and enjoy life more.

“Why do we work? What do we do with the money we earn?” asks Anna Coote, head of social policy at the New Economics Foundation. “Can we begin to think differently about how much we need—to get out of the fast lane and live life at a more sustainable pace, to do things that are better for the planet, better for ourselves?”

“Whether you move to a smaller house or an apartment, downsize to one or no car, or simply have fewer lattes to-go, a smaller paycheck could reduce consumption overall,” noted Sierra Magazine, a publication of the Sierra Club, which is an anti-fossil fuel and nuclear power environmental group.

“We could cook dinner instead of unwrapping and microwaving it, Assadourian suggests, or hang laundry to dry, which would cut electricity use and let us spend time in the sun,” the magazine added.

Assadourian and Coote aren’t the only ones with Malthusian points of view. About a month ago, former Vice President Al Gore suggested that “fertility management” was crucial to fighting global warming and promoting development in poor countries.

“Depressing the rate of child mortality, educating girls, empowering women and making fertility management ubiquitously available — so women can choose how many children and the spacing of children — is crucial to the future shape of human civilization,” Gore said on an international panel on global warming in January.

“Africa is projected to have more people than China and India by mid-century; more than China and India combined by end of the century, and this is one of the causal factors that must be addressed,” the failed presidential candidate added.

But one man’s paradise is another man’s hell. Many of Sierra Magazine’s commentators did not think “de-growth” was such a good idea.

“At least you’re honest about your agenda of lowering people’s standard of living. Very few people on the Left are so honest,” one commenter said. “But as always, some animals are more equal than others. When Michelle Obama starts hanging the family laundry out to dry on the White House lawn, please let us know.”

“This is pure Socialist Horse Manure! ‘so we need to spread the money around more evenly,’” said another.
 

Steve

Well-known member
treehugger said:
“We could cook dinner instead of unwrapping and microwaving it, Assadourian suggests,

where do they get these idiots from.. ?

don't they understand basic science?

Although a microwave may not save much energy or money over a stove burner when heating water, it can be much more energy-efficient than a traditional full-size oven when it comes to cooking food. For starters, because their heat waves are concentrated on the food, microwaves cook and heat much faster than traditional ovens. According to the federal government’s Energy Star program, which rates appliances based on their energy-efficiency, cooking or re-heating small portions of food in the microwave can save as much as 80 percent of the energy used to cook or warm them up in the oven.

I really don't like food cooked in the microwave.. it is fine for some things.. heating up a cup of coffee.. popcorn.. but not actual cooking..

even TV dinners taste better cooked in the oven.. I realize they can be nuked in about 4 min,.. compared to 40 for the oven.. but they really suck when nuked.. so I guess I will have to pay extra.. and work a bit more,.. not much more though..

That said, the difference in energy saved by using one method over another is negligible: Choosing the most efficient process might save a heavy tea drinker a dollar or so a year. “You’d save more energy over the year by replacing one light bulb with a CFL [compact fluorescent lightbulb] or turning off the air conditioner for an hour—not an hour a day, one hour at some point over the whole year,” says consumer advocate Michael Bluejay.

, Bluejay reiterates that most of us will hardly put a dent in our overall energy use just by choosing one appliance over another. According to his analysis, for someone who bakes three hours a week the cheapest cooking method saves only an estimated $2.06/month compared to the most expensive method.

well there it is.. another liberal myth busted..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Speaking of Global Warming:



I only wish this Tea Party nitwit knew of what he speaks... With our predicted temps of -20 to -30 and 30mph winds predicted to give us -40 to -50 chill factors over the next week - I would welcome some wind turbines slowing down the wind and causing a little warming... :wink: :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
The "Real" quote from Rep. Joe Barton:
"Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can't transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It's just something to think about."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Its quite obvious he hasn't been to Montana with his inference that wind is a finite resource...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Its quite obvious he hasn't been to Montana with his inference that wind is a finite resource...

Idiot, idiot, idiot. He didn't say "WIND" was a finite resource, he said "ENERGY" was a finite resource. Read it again:
if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource

Am I going to have to slap your fat ass every day to get you out of your stupidity? Forget that, it wouldn't work anyway.............. :roll:

You might want to go back to "5 Bar X" and delete that same post since it's a lie over there too. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Its quite obvious he hasn't been to Montana with his inference that wind is a finite resource...

Idiot, idiot, idiot. He didn't say "WIND" was a finite resource, he said "ENERGY" was a finite resource. Read it again:
if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource

Am I going to have to slap your fat ass every day to get you out of your stupidity? Forget that, it wouldn't work anyway.............. :roll:


Wind is a form of energy- and we haven't ran out yet...

You can make all the excuses you want for him- but as a hater of wind turbines and opponent of funding wind energy research their is no doubt what he spoke of....
In fact a little more of your statement indicates it was in a hearing where Barton questioned the wisdom of deficit spending to fund an extensive national wind turbine energy generation grid... Wind was the topic- and everyone there took it as wind to what he was speaking.. Except YOU..

Barton doesn't appear to be known as being too bright a bulb with the scientific community...
http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1997963-1,00.html
 

Mike

Well-known member
You're even more stupid than I previously thought. Yes, wind was the general topic of conversation but in his statement he said "energy" (comma) "which is a finite resource".

You're to dense to see that? :lol:

Your original facebook-type post is not a quote from what he said. It changes the context of what he said drastically. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
You're even more stupid than I previously thought. Yes, wind was the general topic of conversation but in his statement he said "energy" (comma) "which is a finite resource".

You're to dense to see that? :lol:

If wind is energy- and wind is infinite- then how can energy be finite?

That is the reason folks want to harness these renewable/infinite energy sources..
 

Steve

Well-known member
oh and why not look to science for an answer..

Wind farms can cause climate change, finds new study
Wind farms can cause climate change, according to new research, that shows for the first time the new technology is already pushing up temperatures.



Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world's largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built.

This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms.

It could also affect regional weather patterns as warmer areas affect the formation of cloud and even wind speeds.

The study, published in Nature, found a “significant warming trend” of up to 0.72C (1.37F) per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to near-by non-wind-farm regions.

The team studied satellite data showing land surface temperature in west-central Texas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html

what.. actual science says the ol bugger was on to something..
 

Steve

Well-known member
If wind is energy- and wind is infinite- then how can energy be finite?

simple fact is renewables do not produce enough energy to meet our societies energy needs.. the capacity is finite.. set in stone in fact..

at best guess estimates only 16% of our power will be provided by renewables by 2040
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/source_renewable_all.cfm

if you can't harvest it.. it can't be counted.. so yes wind energy is finite..





and when they run out of capacity.. do you think the cities will get turned off or your area...
 

Steve

Well-known member
dang science..


Supreme irony: wind farms can cause atmospheric warming, finds a new study.

While ironic that something designed to reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably warming)is actually producing warming around it, this isn’t really any big surprise.

Wind farms can cause climate change, according to new research, that shows for the first time the new technology is already pushing up temperatures.

Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world’s largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built. This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms. It could also affect regional weather patterns as warmer areas affect the formation of cloud and even wind speeds.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1505.html

well who would have thought that.. certainly not a liberal cult member..


but the ol coot said it would slow down the wind "according to OT..

but lets take what he actually said..
which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale.

slow the wind down pfffffft nonsense.. sure maybe it might just raise the temp enough to be noticed by a satellite..

but slow it down.. if wind is harnessed on a massive scale.. pfffffft nonsense..

well not so fast there liberals.. hold on a second..
Offshore Wind Farms Could Knock Down Hurricanes
A forest of turbines would have drastically reduced the winds and storm surges from hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.

An intriguing new computer simulation shows that large wind turbines spread across 35,000 square kilometers of ocean outside of New Orleans would have cut Hurricane Katrina’s category 3 winds at landfall by 129 to 158 kilometers per hour (80 to 98 miles per hour) and reduced the storm surge by 79 percent. The same collection of turbines offshore of New York City would have dropped Hurricane Sandy’s winds by 125 to 140 kph and the surge by up to 34 percent.

Jacobson has calculated in mind-bending detail how turbines could defuse hurricane forces, all laid out in a new paper appearing today in Nature Climate Change.

I’m not advocating anything. It’s just the science. If coal were the cleanest choice, I’d be pushing coal. But it’s not.”

But wouldn’t turbines snap or topple over in hurricane winds? No, because of how the farms would reduce the wind energy. Here’s how it would work: As the outer bands of a hurricane approach the massive set of wind farms, the turbines spin, taking energy out of the winds. Those winds usually whip up waves and pull air up alongside the hurricane eye wall, increasing the storm’s strength. If the outer-band winds are diminished, the storm’s power decreases; wind speeds slow and the surge lessens.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/offshore-wind-farms-could-knock-down-hurricanes1/

well what do ya know.. massive wind farms will reduce the wind speed and the are causing temperature increase..

those pesky facts... these scientist just need to learn it is settled science and it is time for them to retire..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Was that quote in regards to the Democrat that wants to build 50 foot walls across Kansas to prevent tornadoes?

Or how about the Democrats that claim non extentent global warming is increasing violent crime...

OT didn't disagree with either, so he must agree. OT, why do you hate science so much?

ust how much more crime can we expect? Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's warming projections, Ranson calculated that from 2010 to 2099, climate change will "cause" an additional "22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft" in the United States.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/climate-change-murder-rape
 
Top