[ExI] jill's folly, was: RE: Trump's lies

spike spike66 at att.net
Wed Aug 24 03:14:58 UTC 2016



From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] 


>…I haven’t studied Stein’s position on energy.  Do you know how she proposes to replace coal?  Has she any idea of the land are we will need to blanket with those things if we try to go that route?  spike




OK I had the brilliant idea of finding out Stein’s position by… like… going to her website.


Here are her energy positions.  I am not an economist or a political science major.  I may be more qualified to comment on energy policy than the other categories so I will.  None of this will work:


*	"All of the above" policy puts fossil fuels above all. (Jan 2016)
*	Climate change causes record storms, floods, and drought. (Jan 2016)
*	Immediate halt in all new fossil fuel exploration. (Oct 2015)
*	Completely zero out climate emissions, as fast as possible. (Jun 2015)
*	Make wars for oil obsolete: 100% renewables by 2030. (Feb 2015)
*	Fight against climate change instead of fighting for oil. (Oct 2012)
*	Weatherizing homes creates jobs & addresses climate change. (Oct 2012)
*	We can't wait 4 more years to address climate change. (Jan 2012)
*	National ban on fracking; natural gas is not clean. (Jan 2012)
*	No evidence that carbon sequestration solves climate crisis. (Jan 2012)
*	Let states prevent nuclear power plants. (Jan 2012)
*	World War II-scale mobilization to reduce carbon burden. (Jan 2012)
*	Renewable energy is win-win for economy & national security. (Dec 2011)
*	Nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous and expensive. (Dec 2011)
*	Logging wood for electricity is neither clean nor green. (Sep 2010)


It doesn’t even mention space based solar, and kinda tries to pretend that we can stop burning coal, stop exploring for new oil, stop fracking, build no new nuke plants, and somehow make up the difference with “renewables.”   100% renewables by 2030?  Heh.  We would be lucky to make that goal by 2130. 


OK so what renewables?  Falling water?  We have already tapped the best sources.  Wind power?  Better than nothing but anyone who flies over the country and looks down already knows that most of the time those things aren’t even turning even on breezy days.  What is left?  Ground based solar?  Well how much power does Stein think we can make that way?  Has she ever done the calcs?  Does she not realize that solar also has its environmental costs?


Before I drop the topic, check out second from the bottom bullet.  Nuclear power is not dirty.  It is dangerous perhaps but compared to all the alternatives, that isn’t clear to me.  Expensive?  Every option is expensive other than coal, and we know that has its environmental costs.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160823/92a699d5/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list