General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Retired admiral jumps into Iowa Senate race against Joni Ernst with blistering message... [View all]NNadir
(33,513 posts)...scientific literature.
The candidate is right.
I am a lifelong Democrat who has never voted Republican, but our party seems to think that we're going to save the world with a bunch of wind turbines, solar cells and electric cars.
Guess what?
Much of the world has already endorsed this "plan" if you can call it that. More than two trillion dollars has been expended on solar and wind in the last ten years alone.
What is the result?
We hit 415 ppm of CO2 in the planetary atmosphere this spring. In the 20th century the average rate of increase in the dangerous fossil fuel waste was as follows:
1961-1970: 0.898 ppm/year on average.
1971-1980: 1.339 ppm/year on average.
1981-1990: 1.554 ppm/year on average.
1991-2000: 1.541 ppm/year on average.
In the age of the rise of "renewable energy will save us" beginning with Germany:
2001-2010: 2.038 ppm/year on average.
2011-2018: 2.418 ppm/year on average.
The 20th century average annual increase overall: 1.31 ppm/year
The 21st century average annual increase overall: 2.12 ppm/year
The last 5 years annual average increase: 2.55 ppm/year
Are we tired of so much winning yet? Do we care a shred for the planet we are leaving behind for our children, our grandchildren and their great grandchildren?
To find out about the acceleration of the rate of decay of the atmosphere, the following graphic from the NOAA Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory says it all:
The absolute numbers can be discerned by calculating from data on the Mauna Loa website's data pages:
CO2 Observatory Data Pages
Let's be clear on something, OK? Prattling on about wind and solar and what we call "The Green New Deal" is not going to work.
So called "renewable energy" hasn't worked; it isn't working; and it won't work.
I'm intrigued by what the candidate has said, and hope he's focused on what will work.