Climate Change? Nahhh ...

The other problem is business and Republicans actively opposing the addition of renewables to fossil fuels in order to cut into emissions.

Gov. Ivey was recently strutting and bragging about a billion dollar plant which manufactures solar panels which is about to be built in Alabama.

Under the current rules from the state public utilities commission, people who install a solar system get paid about a quarter as much for electricity returned to the grid as in most states. You can't get enough money back to offset the cost of installing such a system, so there are very few of them here.

Wonder why. Wonder what this company is going to say when they realize that there is no market for their product in the state where they produce it.

 

I think that if USA is able to eliminate fossil fuels by 2050 it would be a healthier world. I think the moves to that is an aspirational goal. It would never happen entirely and would require many, many technological breakthroughs to even get close.

I am unsure what you mean though about deaths caused by environmental extremists causing deaths. I have been to New Delhi and Beijing. Ignore global warming for a moment. Breathing that air on a bad smog day has got to be ruinous to your health. I acknowledge that fossil fuels have helped create those countries economic gains that have benefited hundreds of millions. But limits have been reached.

Perhaps American conservatives would be in favor of supplementing fossil fuels. But Republicans do not appear to support such a move. The most recent Republican president who is a front runner for the 2024 nomination denies there is a problem.

 

Where's our '(plastic) waste-to-fuel' Manhattan Project?

https://energy.mit.edu/news/turning-waste-into-clean-fuels/

 

Here's fusion.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ajor-milestone-toward-practical-fusion-power/

 

Deaths caused by environmental non-extremists:

Beginning 14 June 2022, floods in Pakistan killed 1,739 people,[3] and caused ₨ 3.2 trillion ($14.9 billion) of damage and ₨ 3.3 trillion ($15.2 billion) of economic losses.[4] The floods were caused by heavier than usual monsoon rains and melting glaciers[5] that followed a severe heat wave, all of which are linked to climate change. It is the world's deadliest flood since the 2020 South Asian floods[6] and described as the worst in the country's history.[7] On 25 August, Pakistan declared a state of emergency because of the flooding.[8]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods

 

Devastating floods in Pakistan

Four days ago. Climate change is now.

 

If they can harness fusion that's an enormous came changer. As long as it's safe.

 

Seems to be an industry trend. Even the state pushing us toward a Utopian green future is pushing the same set-up.

California's new solar energy proposal removes hefty grid connection fee

 

That's a rational person talking. There are now laws in place in several states to not eliminate or discourage the use of fossil fuels by 2050 when the technology might be ready for a shift, but to ban them by 2030 or 2035 whether the technology is ready or not.
American conservatives, at least the ones I seem to hear most often, are all for any innovation that might steer us toward cleaner energy. What they're not for is the wanton destruction of the current system we have in place to get there. Fossil fuels are miracles. They are cheap and efficient, and we now have a century of R&D in place to wring every last joule of energy possible out of a barrel of oil.
If the technology is there by 2050 and there's a natural evolution toward wind and solar, to where those are the better methods of energy production, then let's do it. But there is a very hard push right now to make it a hard shift by a specific date that by all indications we will not be ready for.

That leads into what I mean by the activists being oblivious to the problems and dangers of their agenda. If you were to eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow, maybe it will clean up the air a bit and slow climate change. You would also have a fraction of the available energy needed to power the things that have made modern life possible. Heating and cooling systems, which modern buildings are designed around. Refrigeration, which is needed to safely store food and medicine. Transportation. Heavy machinery. Ironically, rocket launches and satellites that help with weather forecasting.
Whatever gains you make on the climate front, whatever lives you think you're saving there, would be dwarfed by the human misery we experience as we're thrown back into a 19th-century state of existence practically overnight.
But that's what the activists — I hesitate to even say hardcore activists, because this seems to be becoming a more mainstream viewpoint — want. They believe we've been bad stewards of the planet and deserve to be punished for it. If a few hundred million people have to go hungry and shiver through a dark winter to see the error of their ways, then so be it. If a few hundred million more starve and freeze to death, then that's the price you pay for a better world.
We have sinned against Mother Earth and must pay our penance as a species.
And THAT'S why it's a religion.

 

seems to me the greater leap of faith is believing the thing that caused the problem will solve the problem

 

goin' great

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2022/east-coast-sea-level-rise/?