Warmists Seem Very Confused That Skeptics Would Embrace “Renewables”

Apparently, all Republicans/Climate Skeptics are only allowed to push for coal and oil usage

For Republicans, clean energy boom, shifting ties test climate change stance

Texas Congressman Lamar Smith has made a name for himself as one of the country’s leading climate change deniers, issuing subpoenas to state attorneys general investigating oil companies and questioning the scientific chops of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

But earlier this month, the San Antonio Republican was back in his seat as chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology arguing to expand government spending on solar and energy storage technologies. Avoiding terms like fossil fuels or climate change, Smith stuck to statements like, “breakthroughs in energy storage are one of the next frontiers, without costly subsidies or mandates.”

The seeming contradiction of endorsing government research into clean technology while arguing against one of its fundamental reasons for being – climate change – is not uncommon in Washington these days. As Republicans maintain their party’s long-standing blockade against action to reduce carbon emissions, they also are embracing a renewable energy industry that is driving investment and jobs in GOP strongholds like Texas.

That part I put in bold is exactly the problem with Leftists/Warmists: they think that the only reason for “clean technology” – which is often anything but, so let’s refer to this as renewables, which isn’t perfect either – is to solve ‘climate change.’

However, from our point of view, we support all of the above.

  • We support wind, we just do not want it slapped up in these big wind farms that fail to capture the energy they say it will, kill lots of birds, chopping them to pieces, blighting the landscape, and leaving messes when they collapse on their giant concrete pads
  • We support solar, we just don’t like these giant farms that provide a lot less energy than they said it would, leaves a toxic mess from production, and sucks up vast amounts of taxpayer money for failed projects.
  • We support hydrothermal. Dams and such.
  • We would prefer that the private sector do this, but, if government is going to use our money, it should be for research and development first, to create viable technology that has a smaller footprint and actually provides the energy it claims it provides. And the loans need to be paid back.
  • Many of us are not big fans of coal and oil, not due to greenhouse gases, but because they are dirty. We also understand, though, that they work for the lowest price, and the best way to bring people out of poverty is reliable, inexpensive energy.
  • We aren’t the ones running around the world clamoring about doom from a tiny increase in CO2 while using vast amounts of fossil fuels.

Democrats prefer projects that are simply payback to Democratic Party donors using taxpayer money. Whether the project works is not even a consideration, especially since hardcore environmental groups will protest the projects, and try and shut them down.

There is no cognitive dissonance for our stance. We believe in an all of the above strategy. But let’s do it wisely. And our version of “clean” is about protecting the environment, not stopping a tiny increase in CO2 that has virtually nothing to do with the current Holocene warm period.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “Warmists Seem Very Confused That Skeptics Would Embrace “Renewables””

  1. Dana says:

    The left aren’t opposed to conservatives, but to their caricature of conservatives. I’m completely opposed to government attempts to increase the costs of living on people over global warming climate change concerns, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t try to not waste fuel and money myself. I like the new LED light bulbs, and use them when I can, not because I’m worried about CO2 emissions, but because I find them a better buy in the long run. (It will be better when the price comes down.) I don’t use a wood stove to supplement my heating oil fired boiler because I am trying to lower emissions, but because it saves me money, and happens to provide more even heat in my house during the winter.

    Many (most?) conservatives are happy to buy and use more efficient appliances and the like, because those things are improved technologies with save us money over time; that’s just sensible economic behavior. We do these things without the Chicken Littles telling us that the sky is falling, because conservatives are simply sensible people.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Some Republicans understand the seriousness of global warming and are acting accordingly, while not yet acknowledging it to their angry voters, many of whom have libertarian leanings and object to any unwanted government involvement.

    Smart Republicans know their stance against AGW is scientifically untenable, but are not quite ready to admit it to their voters.

    Honestly, we don’t care why you do the right thing, as long as you do the right thing.

    The draft Republican Platform 2016 claims that coal is a “clean” energy source. Even if you ignore CO2 pollution, coal is by no means “clean” (as Teach pointed out).

  3. Bunkerville says:

    Just saying,
    … But LEDs do have a dark side. A study published in late 2010 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found that LEDs contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially dangerous substances.
    I’ll stick with the global warming regular light bulb

Bad Behavior has blocked 9455 access attempts in the last 7 days.