I've said word to this effect elsewhere, and I feel it bears repeating.
I simply just don't get the sheer hubris and insanity that's at work here.
Now, Raj, I know you think climate change is a hoax and all.
But what about improving air quality in places like Los Angeles or New York City? Because in these places, where they've implemented moves to renewable energy - or at least energy sources that are not as detrimental to the air quality - there has been noticeable and quantifiable changes in the air quality in these areas.
You cannot honestly tell me that cleaner air in general isn't a good thing.
I mean, this kind of thinking hearkens back to the PG&E case where they told the residents "Our chromium is safe so you don't have to worry!"
There's a reason why it's called "pollution" in the first place. If it's just a little, okay then. The Earth can handle little stuff - even the occasional big nasty like a huge volcanic eruption like Krakatoa. But when you're burning energy that outpaces the energy released by things like volcanic eruptions? You're gonna throw some shit out of whack, one way or another.
What, think I'm just screwing around? Talking out my ass?
Okay.
It's estimated that Mt Saint Helens put out somewhere in the neighborhood of 24 megatons of energy released in just in the initial blast of it's eruption in 1980.
24 megatons is about 100.4 BILLION Megajoules.
100.4 Billion Megajoules is about 95.2 Trillion BTUs of energy.
And in 2017, the USA expended about 97.7 Quadrilllion BTUs of energy. About 80% of that was in the form of fossil fuels.
That's a little more than 1000 times the energy Mt Saint Helens released.
This is just basic math. There's no massaging of the figures here - the math is sound, even if it's the 'back of a cocktail napkin' variety - it's accurate enough to give you an idea of what we're doing to our planet.
Over 1,000 Mt Saint Helens eruptions per year. Yes, the particulates are nowhere nearly as bad. We're not throwing thousands of tons of dust up into the air. But that kind of burning of fossil fuels is the very opposite of "sustainable".
Sources:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?pag...nergy_home
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_erupt...St._Helens
I simply just don't get the sheer hubris and insanity that's at work here.
Now, Raj, I know you think climate change is a hoax and all.
But what about improving air quality in places like Los Angeles or New York City? Because in these places, where they've implemented moves to renewable energy - or at least energy sources that are not as detrimental to the air quality - there has been noticeable and quantifiable changes in the air quality in these areas.
You cannot honestly tell me that cleaner air in general isn't a good thing.
I mean, this kind of thinking hearkens back to the PG&E case where they told the residents "Our chromium is safe so you don't have to worry!"
There's a reason why it's called "pollution" in the first place. If it's just a little, okay then. The Earth can handle little stuff - even the occasional big nasty like a huge volcanic eruption like Krakatoa. But when you're burning energy that outpaces the energy released by things like volcanic eruptions? You're gonna throw some shit out of whack, one way or another.
What, think I'm just screwing around? Talking out my ass?
Okay.
It's estimated that Mt Saint Helens put out somewhere in the neighborhood of 24 megatons of energy released in just in the initial blast of it's eruption in 1980.
24 megatons is about 100.4 BILLION Megajoules.
100.4 Billion Megajoules is about 95.2 Trillion BTUs of energy.
And in 2017, the USA expended about 97.7 Quadrilllion BTUs of energy. About 80% of that was in the form of fossil fuels.
That's a little more than 1000 times the energy Mt Saint Helens released.
This is just basic math. There's no massaging of the figures here - the math is sound, even if it's the 'back of a cocktail napkin' variety - it's accurate enough to give you an idea of what we're doing to our planet.
Over 1,000 Mt Saint Helens eruptions per year. Yes, the particulates are nowhere nearly as bad. We're not throwing thousands of tons of dust up into the air. But that kind of burning of fossil fuels is the very opposite of "sustainable".
Sources:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?pag...nergy_home
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_erupt...St._Helens