Video: Stop Radiophobia!
Radiation levels on a popular Brazilian beach are higher than Chernobyl.
via JunkScience.com
February 22, 2020 at 06:56PM
Month: February 2020
Nobody appears to be more concerned about climate change than Democratic presidential front-runner Bernie Sanders, student activist Greta Thunberg, and the thousands of Extinction Rebellion activists who shut down London last year.
Last year, Sanders called climate change “an existential threat.” Extinction Rebellion said, “Billions will die.” And Thunberg said, “I don’t want you to be hopeful” about climate change, “I want you to panic.”
But if Sanders, Thunberg, and Extinction Rebellion are so alarmed about carbon emissions, why are they fighting to halt the use of two technologies, fracking and nuclear, that are most responsible for reducing them? Today In: Business
Sanders says he would ban both natural gas and nuclear energy, Thunberg saysshe opposes nuclear energy, and Extinction Rebellion’s spokesperson said in a debate with me on BBC that she opposes natural gas.
And yet, emissions are declining thanks to the higher use of nuclear energy and natural gas. Carbon emissions have been declining in developed nations for the last decade. In Europe, emissions in 2018 were 23% below 1990 levels. In the U.S., emissions fell 15 percent from 2005 to 2016.
It’s true that industrial wind turbines and solar panels contributed to lower emissions. But their contribution was hugely outweighed by nuclear and natural gas.
Globally, nuclear energy produces nearly twice as much electricity at half the cost. And nuclear-heavy France pays little more than half as much for electricity that produces one-tenth of the carbon emissions as renewables-heavy, anti-nuclear Germany.
Natural gas reduced emissions 11 times more than solar energy and 50 percent more than wind energy in the U.S. And the unreliable nature of renewables means that they do not substitute for fossil power plants like nuclear plants do and instead must be backed up by natural gas or hydro-electric dams.
Can They Be Serious?
What gives? Why are the people who are most alarmist about climate change so opposed to the technologies that are solving it?
One possibility is that they truly believe nuclear and natural gas are as dangerous as climate change. This appears to be partly the case for nuclear energy, even though neither Sanders nor Thunberg offers anti-nuclear rhetoric anywhere nearly as apocalyptic as their rhetoric on climate change.
Before progressives were apocalyptic about climate change they were apocalyptic about nuclear energy. Then, after the Cold War ended, and the threat of nuclear war declined radically, they found a new vehicle for their secular apocalypse in the form of climate change.
Though nuclear energy has prevented the premature deaths of nearly two million people by reducing air pollution, and though nuclear weapons have contributed to the Long Peace since World War II, many people remain phobicof the technology.
In the case of natural gas, neither Sanders, Thunberg, or Extinction Rebellion claim it is more dangerous or worse than coal. They simply argue that we don’t need it, thanks to renewables and energy efficiency.
But Sanders learned the hard way that renewables can’t replace nuclear. Where Vermont promised to reduce emissions by 16% between 1990 and 2015, emissions instead rose 25%. Part of the reason was the closure of a nuclear plant, something Sanders advocated.
“You think we should eliminate nuclear power,” said Martha MacCallum in a Fox Town Hall meeting, “which I know they did in Vermont.”
“Sure,” said Sanders.
“But it ended up moving your emissions higher,” added MacCallum.
“Honestly, I don’t think that that’s correct,” said Sanders.
In fact, it is correct and has been confirmed by The Boston Globe, the plant’s former operator, a well-respected Vermont energy analyst, a think tank, and researchers with my organization, Environmental Progress.
Full Post
The post If They Are So Alarmed By Climate Change, Why Are They So Opposed To Solving It? appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
February 22, 2020 at 06:48PM
Chris White Tech Reporter
February 21, 2020 10:32 AM ET
Democratic 2020 candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren said at a CNN town hall Thursday that the so-called Green New Deal is not a sufficient policy to tackle what she believes is the biggest problem facing the world.
Americans need to focus on pushing the envelope further than what Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was willing to do when she proposed the GND, according to Warren. The Massachusetts Democrat has expressed support for the legislation in the past.
“What I want to see us do is get off an oil economy and not only for ourselves, but for the rest of the world,” Warren, a Democrat, said as she explained why the GND does not go far enough to prevent climate change.
She added: “I want to see us move entirely to green. And let me say on this, I not only support a Green New Deal, I don’t think it goes far enough. I also have a Blue New Deal, because we’ve got to be thinking about our oceans as well that we need to protect.”
WATCH:
The resolution, among other things, calls for “10-year national mobilizations” toward a series of goals aimed at fighting global warming. A separate fact sheet claims the plan would “mobilize every aspect of American society on a scale not seen since World War 2.””It seeks to nix oil production outright.
Recent reports suggest the GND could cost tens of trillions of dollars. Americans could be forced to pay up to $93 trillion to implement the proposal over a decade, the conservative-leaning American Action Forum (AAF) noted in a study in February.
Still, Warren is moving forward on lofty plans to wallop the industry. (RELATED: Liz Warren Pushes Bill Imposing Green New Deal Climate Goals On The US Military)
She is also supporting a ban on hydraulic fracturing, a method of drilling that involves spraying high pressure water and sand underground to make tiny fractures in rock to release gas, which can then be liquified. She proposed a plan in June 2019 to spend $2 trillion over a decade to create one million green jobs.
via Watts Up With That?
February 22, 2020 at 04:06PM
22 Feb 2020 – Total reported coronavirus cases: 77,990
Total reported deaths: 2,363
Total reported recovered: 21,318
Source:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
The post Coronavirus – 113 new deaths, 737 new cases appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
February 22, 2020 at 03:32PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 