Shit! I hate when that happens.
It was the herpes that did it for me.
Ok, but to reduce greenhouse gases to no impact, we’d have to cut energy use by about 90%. Not only do we each have to use 90% less power, but that also means no driving unless you already have a all-electric car, but even in that case, your driving is cut 90%.
Since food, etc also needs energy to be grown, harvested, processed and brought to our local area, we all need to eat 90% less too.
Oh, and we have to close our borders to immigration (something the Sierra club is against) and require zero population growth.
All of which will mean nothing as the Third world will continue as they currently are.
So, yeah- conservation will help. But it is NOT the solution. Renewable Energy is the ONLY solution. Renewable energy means nuke, solar and hydro- all of which the Sierra club is fighting tooth and nail.
And note- I was willing to give them a pass on Nuke power. But not Nuke AND Solar AND Hydro.
I think you misunderstood. That wasn’t meant as attack. It was an offer of sex.
The Sierra Club is against hydro energy and solar energy?:dubious:
Going to the positions and explanations expressed in their website I can see that the OP is only hitting one out of the three.
They are not opposed at all against solar, indeed the beef is only on where some solar panels or plants are being built, and regarding Hetch Hetchy, that is mostly related to their past history, and also the location the reservoir is, they failed and their efforts to remove it now are subject to one important limitation: that to remove it an alternative source of water should be setup or ready when the moment to remove the current dam arrives, in other words, just talk, but with some logic.
I can grant you that the logic does fail in the nuclear front, unfortunately on that even conservatives for the environment (and yes, they do exist) fall for NIMBY.
The real ideological drivers of the environmental movement have always been anti-development, anti-humanism, imperialism and eugenics. The Sierra Club, WWF and Club of Rome illustrate this perfectly. The idea is that people are destroying the planet by there mere existence and non-productive specimens should be culled, the most non-productive of all are the lesser races and our attention should be focused and reducing their breedng rates and causing as much dath among their existing populations as possible. Modern industry is anathema to this goal and therefore must be shut down, blaming a product of our industrial society, CO2, for environmental destruction and an impending catastrophe can be used to create a pretense for shutting down industry. They don’t want viable non-CO2 producing energy sources like nuclear and hydroelectric to develop because this would wreck their schemes, solar and wind can be tolerated for now because they don’t have the capability for mass energy production yet.
Have a quick look through some environmentalists’ ramblings and you’ll see the topic of global overpopulation come up very often, they can’t seem to hide their genocidal fury very well.
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
The lovable environmentalist, big wig at the WWF and neo-fuedalist Prince Philip.
Thomas Malthus the noted British imperialist is inspiration for these people, Malthusianism is the essense of mainstream environmentalism. Those nature reserves that the WWF runs around the world are used to destabilise the regions around them by training and arming militia armies to cause slaughter and destruction. If you want to understand the mess Africa is in delve into the goings on in these “reserves”.
Best thing to do would be to shun the modern environmentalism and support cheap nuclear power without their toxic blessing.
I don’t suppose you have a credible cite for that, do you?
To be clear, I’m not going to engage in a pro/anti-nuke or delve into the complexity of GHG reduction pathways. All I care to do is point out that the idea that nuclear power is a panacea and any argument against is automatically invalid because GLOBAL WARMING! (and that opposition *must *take the stance that we need to return to 1800s-level energy use and that nuclear/coal is teh devil) is weaksauce that Friedo sucked and swallowed out of FXMastermind. Joining the fun, you’ve got hyperbole like “we need to replace 90 percent of all energy use” dripping down your chin.
Holy shit that was a nonsensical trip through the bullshit daisies.
Not just this one dam:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/business/energy-environment/12bonneville.html?pagewanted=all
http://oregon.sierraclub.org/groups/columbia/overlook/pdf/Columbia%20Overlook%2004%20Summer.pdf
http://ww2.valdosta.edu/~tmanning/hon399/mike.htm
Sierra Club presses World Bank to withdraw $500 million loan to Brazil, which kills plans to build 147 dams and flood large areas of Amazon.
(last cite is pretty biased)
In America renewable energy counts for about 10% of all energy generated. To reduce greenhouse gas generation by human causes this means a 90% reduction.
And like I said- I’d be willing to give them a pass on Nuke power, given the other issues with nuclear power. Mind you, they are still wrong there, but if they were pro-dam, and pro-solar, etc, I’d not call them hypocrites. But they have never seen a dam they didn’t want to tear down. They oppose any more dam building. Now sure, they are Ok with putting a few panels up on your house, but they oppose large solar generating plants.
Correct. I’m glad we’re finally on the same page, here. Huggzies. <3
You clearly don’t know much about the eugenics movement. Do you think it was confined to Nazism and dissapeared after WW2? It fitted perfectly with the ideologies of imperialism that are alive and kicking today, it was just given a facelift after WW2 and the holocaust. Nowadays environmentalism is the vehicle for pushing eugenics upon the world.
Reminds me of a discussion I had with a student in my SCI 101 class when we were going over the chapter on energy.
Student: Nuclear power is bad! I’m against it.
Me: Why?
Student: It’s dangerous!
Me: There’s no evidence to support your claim. But let’s assume it’s true for the sake of argument. If we do not transition to nuclear power, we are stuck with oil and coal (mainly coal).
Student: We need to stop using oil and coal.
Me: Then where would our energy come from?
Student: From safe, renewable energy sources.
Me: Like what?
Student: Like solar and wind.
Me: With the current state of technology, it is impossible to supply our nation’s energy needs via PV arrays and windmills.
Student: I disagree. The oil companies and Republicans don’t want them to be built.
:rolleyes:
At that point I realized it was a lost cause. The Sierra Club, Al Gore, The Green Party, etc. had obviously brainwashed her to the point of no return.
Well first of all Sierra Club was meeting fairly regularly with the developer to try and find an appropriate place. Secondly, there is what they call "disturbed land, land that is formerly railroads or mines or other abandoned areas. BTW, there have been cases where the SIerra Club have supported utility scale solar. link The thing is, solar PV takes up huge amounts of land as does the transmission associated with it and its not like you get to pick it up and move it, you really need to get it right the first time through. So the Sierra Club and the NRDC are advocating for their members not against solar, but just against solar no matter what and no matter where.
I was responding to your original statement, that we needed to reduce by 90 percent “to reduce greenhouse gases to no impact.” These are different statements, both contestable, but a bit outside the scope of things.
This is a slightly different sentiment than what I initially took from the OP. At the risk of getting a mod warning for violating board rules (I’m supposed to not only insist that my first impression was correct, but also that I need to stick with that impression and make all your subsequent comments fit—with ever-increasing vitriol), I’ll agree that it’s possible to have reasoned opposition to nuclear power, that it’s very context-based, and extremism (on either side of the question) is asshattery.
My experience with the Sierra Club is fairly limited. It’s been about fifteen years since I worked on Environmental Impact Statements for the DOE (for, among other things, Y-12 and Yucca Mountain), but they and other environmental groups had important roles to play. Similar to the adversarial system in the courts (best of a bunch of shitty options), their oversight and input helped balance the much-better-funded industrial interests that took part in comment review, etc. I can’t say what they’re like now, or whether their policies and approaches form a cohesive and consistent whole, but the people I worked with were great representatives for the organization. Not “no nukes at any cost so there!” but strongly reasoned analysis and technical input of weak areas of the report.
I guess I have to grant a lot to the second point, but they still support small hydro; in any case, your point on the Hetch Hetchy is not telling the whole history, they do grant that only when there are good alternatives available that then it should go, but I’m not so supportive of them on this item.
Funny, one of our resident concerned conservatives is appalled that many environmentalists are not talking about controlling the population increase in regards to the damage it causes to the environment (they actually do, but they leave the family planning to the individuals) Yet another made the point that people like the sierra club are not [del]arian[/del] nativist enough for not being against immigration that affects also the environment.
You are a very odd duck but a little bit original in that you accuse of Nazi behavior to groups that actually had a recent vote and told the more in tune to fascism groups to take a hike.
And it needs to be mentioned that I see the Sierra Club almost like I see the Masons, and old school club that is coasting and resting in the laurels of past heroes but not attracting much new blood nowadays.
And one can see why in my personal example, I do think that they are wrong regarding nuclear power and large hydro electrical plants.
I’m reading this on my bike.
(Okay, well, just after commuting on it. But I did appreciate an excellent point… the trick is to get millions of people to actually compromise and achieve it)