Say, Should Tackling Hotcoldwetdry Trump Real Environmental Concerns?

That’s what Miles King at the UK Guardian wants to know, though he puts it without snark

Should tackling climate change trump protecting nature?

Does the need to mitigate the effects of man-made climate change override the need to protect nature?

Climate change is with us, and is one of nine reasons why scientists are now concerned that the rate of environmental degradation is a threat to the future of human life on Earth. The loss of biodiversity, dubbed the Sixth Green Extinction by some, is another threat to humanity, with nearly half of the world’s amphibians and a fifth of its plants at risk of extinction.

We do not have the luxury of choosing which of these nine challenges to tackle; they are all critical to our survival.

Strange, since Warmists tend to pick their fake issue over real environmental concerns

Yet last week, here in West Dorset, the council unanimously approved the development of a 25MW solar farm on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Rampisham Down was designated as a SSSI because it is nationally important for wildlife. There are 70ha of heathland and nature-rich grassland, known as lowland acid grassland at Rampisham. (snip)

The West Dorset planning committee met last weeky to decide whether to give the Solar Farm planning permission. They listened to the evidence against it from Natural England and Dorset Wildlife Trust, and for it, from the developers, their witnesses and local councillors. They discounted the nature value of the Down, viewed it as brownfield land which would benefit from being developed, and decided that the production of renewable energy and the small number of jobs the development would bring were of greater benefit to society than protecting the wildlife.

So, to hell with nature, let’s slap up tons of solar panels all over the countryside, despoiling nature, which will produce roughly 4 to 5 megawatts. Warmists don’t actually care about nature. They care about their politics.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Say, Should Tackling Hotcoldwetdry Trump Real Environmental Concerns?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Protecting nature is no more an option, than tackling climate change – both are necessary and one cannot outweigh the other.

    It doesn’t have to be an either/or.

    You call global warming a fake issue, yet nearly every scientist on Earth disagrees with you. For most people that fact would induce at least modest introspection, but not you! But I get it. I read some of WUWT the other day. If that’s where you get your info on global warming, you’re hopeless.

  2. Tuesday morning links

    5 things Steve Jobs said Apple would never do – and Apple is doing How Do Sea Turtles Find the Exact Beach Where They Were Born? An Actual Letter Ayn Rand Wrote To An Actual Teenage Girl Why Feminists Hate Mal

  3. david7134 says:

    Lets re-phrase your comment. Instead of “scientist” put most people who possess or desire government grants feel that climate change is linked to humans. And then further, we can say that most “scientist” who desire publication to further their carriers feel the same as the peer review process is broken.

    Now, in the world of medicine, lets see what has generated the whole hearted approval of “scientist”. We can start with blood letting and leeches. Actually, we are still using leeches. But more recent we can pin point the war on cholesterol and the billions we have spent to lower cholesterol only to find that it does nothing to control CV disease. Their are thousands of articles that support this position, but recently it has been found to be nothing more than a farce by big pharma. Then even more recent, the war of salt has been found to be very stupid as well as salt has no association with illness unless you have kidney problems or CHF.

  4. “…nearly every scientist on Earth disagrees with you.” That is simply untrue. I turn your own argument about introspection back on you. Pretty much everyone agrees that there has been some warming since 1800, and that 1998-present temps have been level but high. After that the consensus evaporates before your eyes. It does not exist. There is 1) suspicion but not consensus that it is anthropogenic. There is actual doubt that 2) man is the primary driver. There is no consensus that 3) slight warming is a bad thing, and absolutely none that we are 4) headed for catastrophe. What you attempt to club us with is not a scientific statement, but a political one, 20% supported by science. The rest is tribal politics.

    BTW, the Russians are now worried we are going into a period of dangerous cooling. I have no idea whether they are right, but it certainly shreds your argument about Nearly Every Scientist.

  5. On to the real topic: there are real environmental concerns which get neglected, mostly around availability of fresh water. Aquifers, PCB’s, nitrogen, sewage, pesticides.

    Those are no fun because you don’t get to kick Big Oil, or other Two Minute Hate targets. Well, sometimes you do, because sometimes Evil Corporations are indeed at fault. But it doesn’t get headlines because 1) no cute furry creatures, and 2) no condemning a whole society that doesn’t respect your precious self as much as you think it should.

Pirate's Cove