Europe, praised for going green, exports emissions to the US

[Idolater]

I'm surprised to find this kind of fair and balanced reporting coming out of CNN. Especially since usually they're like many other news media; they love Europe; Europe walks on water; Europe's skubalon doesn't stink.

'We've been disrespected'

How the European Union's drive to curb carbon emissions led to pollution and community disruption in the American South

edition.cnn.com

 

[Idolater]

Basically in order to attempt to be green, Europe believes that if they have to burn something for heat, it should be biomass, and that is basically wood pellets, and producing the wood pellets is potentially harmful to the environment, seems likely to be harmful to people who live near the biomass production factories, and, also, it requires chopping down trees that take like five decades to be replaced with new plantings. The new demand in the lumber industry means more trees get chopped down. Hurray for Europe and hurray for climate activism.

 

[Idolater]

“I can’t think of anything that harms nature more than cutting down trees and burning them,” said William Moomaw, professor emeritus of international environmental policy at Tufts University.

Yet by burning wood, European power plants can reduce their carbon footprint — at least on paper.

 

[Idolater]

The focus is on emissions, which big picture, seems ridiculous because of the effort required to move away from burning 'fossil' fuels for heat.

Combined with that we're going to run out of them anyway.

We've been told this for decades.

Oil, will run out. Coal, will run out. Natural gas, will run out. It will all run out, and then our emissions 'problem' will end all by itself.

In the meantime, we have like 50-100 years, I guess, who knows. What does it matter if we stop burning 'fossil' fuel a few decades earlier than it all just runs out on us anyway? Why the dramatic effort, and expense? I don't want us to do this. I want us to focus on heat, not emissions. We need to either expel heat from our atmosphere, or absorb it somehow, like turning it into electricity than can be stored in cold batteries. Or reflect the sun's heat back out.

I really think there's only one reasonable answer if we really care about climate change and it's nuclear. We need like twice to ten times as many nuclear power plants. That's the most reasonable way to address the heat problem, and it also reduces the demand on emitters as a side effect anyway. Trouble? How do you make sure nobody makes bombs out of the fissionable fuel, and how to prevent meltdowns with 100% certainty? I don't know, but there isn't a more responsible path forward to ramping up nuclear power investment asap.

 

[Right Divider]

We need to either expel heat from our atmosphere, or absorb it somehow, like turning it into electricity than can be stored in cold batteries. Or reflect the sun's heat back out.

No, we don't "need" to try to adjust the "earth's temperature". That's just what you've been lead to believe by those that claim that man is the major factor in the climate of the planet. We are NOT.

 

[Idolater]

No, we don't "need" to try to adjust the "earth's temperature". That's just what you've been lead to believe by those that claim that man is the major factor in the climate of the planet. We are NOT.

Oh.