WHY would the government trick us?

So if theyre paid fairly then youll stfu?
Or its a just a gish of badfatihed excuses?

Even if they are paid fairly, information can occasionally leak, keeping big secrets for decades is quite tricky and relies on luck (that may eventually run out)
It being an excuse is a bit more likely

It is about less blood on your hands, because you have plenty, and you are actively defending that blood, while trying to ignore it.

I'm not trying to promote coal or oil. By any means.

I'm saying that your easy answers are really bad ones. Human slavery, mass destruction of woodlands, and so on. While trying to ignore it. If we are looking for clean hands, I says that yours are dirtier than mine. I know exactly where this technology fails (black lung and smoke exhaust), and I know where it goes right (very little real land use for alot of energy). You don't seem willing to admit likewise.

What we actually ought to be doing is pruning (not cutting down) trees, and feeding them into gasifiers. Or making engines that (like Mr Fusion in Back to the Future) turn garbage into fuel (they needn't be using fusion, again a small gasifier furnace would do fine).  And before you even start to tell me "Pollution, blah blah blah,"  gasifiers feed burnt material into a combustion engine. The more closed and efficient, the cleaner this becomes. That's just a matter of technology.

After that, production of sustainable oil (I recommend jerking off menhaden, which they already do with massive breeding for fish oil),

and peat moss burning.

We don't need to build fuel sources, we don't need a model built on suffering. And I admit that such current oil and coal tech is not a perfect solution. What I was saying is that when it comes to human, animal, and plant suffering, what you propose as an environmental "solution" is more like the Final Solution.

Paris Accords may offer it as a "solution", but France came up with more goofy ideas than any other country. FFS they had a whole list of months following the French Revolution, where they tried to foist the metric system on the world. Or how about their ten day week? They also had every day named after fruits, veggies, or random objects (and unsurprisingly, it's back again with UN national days). That's just their calendar.  These French like to proclaim their crackpot ideas, and see what sticks.

So look. Coal and oil aren't the best we can do, but we aren't chasing after whales with spears. Solar power is not a step forward. It's kinda a step backward. And if you were honest, you'd admit it too.

Oh, and...
https://fossilfuel.com/how-the-coal-mining-industry-has-become-safer-today/
Coal mining has become safer over the years.

I'm not trying to promote coal or oil. By any means.

Yes you are. With your repeated attacks on alternatives, and crap like this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92453.msg2434996#msg2434996

I'm saying that your easy answers are really bad ones.

While ignoring the fact that the ones we currently have are far worse.
The answers we have now are not that bad.
You are actively trying to keep those bad options we have now around, opposing improving the world.

Human slavery, mass destruction of woodlands, and so on.

Just like fossil fuels.
In fact your so blatantly dishonest you pick a mine that is used to gather a material that is then used to extract fossil fuels, and pretend that shows how bad alternatives are.

I says that yours are dirtier than mine.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are happy to repeatedly lie to people, so you saying things is entirely worthless.
I know you are lying yet again.

I know exactly where this technology fails (black lung and smoke exhaust), and I know where it goes right (very little real land use for alot of energy).

No, you remain wilfully ignorant, carefully cherry picking what you want to look at and then ignoring the rest.
As shown repeatedly.

What we actually ought to be doing is pruning (not cutting down) trees, and feeding them into gasifiers.

Which yet again demonstrates your hypocrisy and double standard.
Clearing a small area of trees for solar panels is a big no no for you, but wiping out entire forests to get fuel to turn into gas seems to be entirely fine.

And before you even start to tell me "Pollution, blah blah blah,"  gasifiers feed burnt material into a combustion engine. The more closed and efficient, the cleaner this becomes.

No, you still lots of pollution from it.
The only pollution you reduce is uncombusted things like CO and carbon based particulates.

After that, production of sustainable oil

Is impossible, unless you are going for clearing large amounts of land to grow crops to turn into biofuels.

And I admit that such current oil and coal tech is not a perfect solution.

Yet you keep pretending it is better than the alternatives, spouting pure BS to do so.

What I was saying is that when it comes to human, animal, and plant suffering, what you propose as an environmental "solution" is more like the Final Solution.

And like so many things, you saying it is pure BS.
It is NOT the final solution.
It is a massive improvement on the current state.

So look. Coal and oil aren't the best we can do

No, it is one of the worst we can do.
Solar and other alternatives are a massive step forwards.

If you were honest, you would admit that.
But instead you keep making BS appeals and ignoring those same issues with coal and oil.

You are continually using an incredibly dishonest double standard, where if fossil fuels do something, you are happy to overlook it, but if alternatives use it, it shows it must be absolutely horrible.
Even when the numbers don't support you.

Yes
Most deinfintely sounds like youre promoting coal and oil.

Why you so dishonest?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144

I'm saying that your easy answers are really bad ones.

What we actually ought to be doing is pruning (not cutting down) trees, and feeding them into gasifiers.

The US consumes 6,994,463,150 gallons of oil per day. Do you really think you can trim trees to produce this volume. Even if you achieve 100% conversion you'll be Easter island in no time.

Trimming trees to run an ECE engine for personal use is quite different from running entire factories. Also, trees regrow their branches. Entire trees regrowing is alot slower.

But while we're on that topic, somehow you guys think switching to electric cars is going to solve things. They at the fuel guzzler stage, and solar and wind are at the barely any fuel stage. So that lieaves big power plants burning something. If it's not oil or coal, it's gonna be wood. Massive amounts of wood. So I'm gonna lob that question back to you. Do you want Haiti? If not, we have choices between coal, oil, fish oil, garbage, solar/wind (neither of which are any good).

Trimming trees to run an ECE engine for personal use is quite different from running entire factories.

And has no chance of powering the world.

So you dismiss viable alternatives by appealing to something that wont work.

Also, trees regrow their branches. Entire trees regrowing is alot slower.

And how fast is it per unit mass?

But while we're on that topic, somehow you guys think switching to electric cars is going to solve things.

No, it wont. Not unless the grid is converted to renewable power sources.

solar and wind are at the barely any fuel stage.

Only because of people like you, so happily sucking the dick of big oil.

You repeatedly saying they are not good doesn't make it so.
Also, I notice you left out nuclear.

If I need to go to point A and B, stopping at a forest for a "fill-up" is far more reasonable than charging for twlce hours or more, which electric currently does. There will be some risk of ticks, but pruning trees like this will actually encourage more forests and less cities.

As for heating and electrifying your house, you can use whatever. It is far more efficient to have an electric house or an electric/gas mix house than it is to have a slow charging "smart" car. What about this is smart? It is literally dumb as fuck to be on a business trip and have to halt for hours while you reload your system.

Better fuel still (which I noticed you seem to have carefully avoided talking about) is configuring the engine to burn anything organic. Stopping to pick up trash means that instead of streets littered with rubbish, we have cleaner cities and towns. Trash-burning cars literally are the future.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/biofuels/garbage-powered-car.htm

This nonsense about wanting to have cars and houses be entirely electric and rely on the sun and the wind is a rainbows and sunshine idea. Oh sure it could work. But you refuse (completely) to consider that it has kinks to work on. That's why I know that it's a get-rich-quick scheme. A serious idea would have no "you need to act now!!!!" urgency. As Mr Rogers says, "I like to take my time, I like to do it right." We spend the weeks or years making sure that it takes less energy to run for miles (energy efficiency) and thus less resources for each electric car on the road. We likewise work for weeks or years to get the charge duration to something under an hour. We in turn give wind power a proper screen so birds are not killed off and make solar power out of safe materials, and make both that they harvest much more energy on much less space.

Electric cars were beat out by conventional cars back in the 19th century or so (yeah, this is an older than they think technology). Instead of making better cars, these in fact are worse. They have big batteries made from awful materials that cause pollution at the production end. If you are serious, you should come up with a model of cars that works under the conditions that I explained. But you're not serious. You want to make a quick buck, and don't respect your marks enough to understand they have lives and brains, and can see through your ideas.

If I need to go to point A and B, stopping at a forest for a "fill-up" is far more reasonable than charging for twlce hours or more, which electric currently does. There will be some risk of ticks, but pruning trees like this will actually encourage more forests and less cities.

As for heating and electrifying your house, you can use whatever. It is far more efficient to have an electric house or an electric/gas mix house than it is to have a slow charging "smart" car. What about this is smart? It is literally dumb as fuck to be on a business trip and have to halt for hours while you reload your system.

Better fuel still (which I noticed you seem to have carefully avoided talking about) is configuring the engine to burn anything organic. Stopping to pick up trash means that instead of streets littered with rubbish, we have cleaner cities and towns. Trash-burning cars literally are the future.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/biofuels/garbage-powered-car.htm

This nonsense about wanting to have cars and houses be entirely electric and rely on the sun and the wind is a rainbows and sunshine idea. Oh sure it could work. But you refuse (completely) to consider that it has kinks to work on. That's why I know that it's a get-rich-quick scheme. A serious idea would have no "you need to act now!!!!" urgency. As Mr Rogers says, "I like to take my time, I like to do it right." We spend the weeks or years making sure that it takes less energy to run for miles (energy efficiency) and thus less resources for each electric car on the road. We likewise work for weeks or years to get the charge duration to something under an hour. We in turn give wind power a proper screen so birds are not killed off and make solar power out of safe materials, and make both that they harvest much more energy on much less space.

Electric cars were beat out by conventional cars back in the 19th century or so (yeah, this is an older than they think technology). Instead of making better cars, these in fact are worse. They have big batteries made from awful materials that cause pollution at the production end. If you are serious, you should come up with a model of cars that works under the conditions that I explained. But you're not serious. You want to make a quick buck, and don't respect your marks enough to understand they have lives and brains, and can see through your ideas.

Where is the government trickery in your post? You're off-topic.

Electric cars have nothing to do with the government trying to trick people.

Just wait until we have flying cars.

Better fuel still (which I noticed you seem to have carefully avoided talking about) is configuring the engine to burn anything organic. Stopping to pick up trash means that instead of streets littered with rubbish, we have cleaner cities and towns. Trash-burning cars literally are the future.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/biofuels/garbage-powered-car.htm

Are you under the impression that a biofuel generation systems will fit in your car?

This nonsense about wanting to have cars and houses be entirely electric and rely on the sun and the wind is a rainbows and sunshine idea.

I don't think that anyone is seriously suggesting that solar and wind should be the only forms of electricity generation.  Hydro is still pretty big and they are working on other systems like improved nuclear and thorium reactors as well as fusion.  Sure, they're still years away, but fossil fuels aren't going away nearly as fast as the fear mongers think or the ecomaniacs would like.

This is what the current electric generation situation looks like.  It's going to take a while to complete the transition from fossil fuel to renewables.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

If I need to go to point A and B, stopping at a forest for a "fill-up" is far more reasonable than charging for twlce hours or more, which electric currently does.

You sure hate remaining consistent don't you?

Make up your mind. Are people just trimming trees a small amount for a small bit of power for personal use, or are these trees meant to fuel for everyone?
Because it seems you yet again want to go the route of mass deforestation to convert them to fuel.

Regardless, what you are actually suggesting is more akin to stopping by the forest, going and pruning or just entirely cutting down a bunch of trees, to then take them to your car, which now has to be ridiculous oversized to fit the gasification system, and hope you don't screw up and have it blow up on you.

Better fuel still (which I noticed you seem to have carefully avoided talking about) is configuring the engine to burn anything organic.

You sure do love lying don't you?
I already spoke about biofuels.

Stopping to pick up trash

Is just another part of your fantasy, and nothing like what would actually fuel a car.
Now you seem to be suggesting, instead of just charging a car, you want people to go scrounging around for garbage.

This nonsense about wanting to have cars and houses be entirely electric and rely on the sun and the wind is a rainbows and sunshine idea. Oh sure it could work.

As opposed to what you have repeatedly said where you claim it doesn't.

But you refuse (completely) to consider that it has kinks to work on.

No, I do accept those kinks.

A serious idea would have no "you need to act now!!!!" urgency.

Pure BS.

The "need to act now" is not to get everyone onto solar, etc.
It is to stop burning fossil fuels.

I guess you would reject any idea to repair a dam which is developing cracks and will fail soon, because it clearly isn't serious as they say we need to act now.

Or if there is a bushfire surrounding your house, the idea of evacuating can't possibly be serious because they are saying you need to act now.

As Mr Rogers says, "I like to take my time, I like to do it right."

And instead of doing that you do whatever you can to oppose the technology at all costs to have less time to get it right.

We spend the weeks or years making sure that it takes less energy to run for miles (energy efficiency) and thus less resources for each electric car on the road. We likewise work for weeks or years to get the charge duration to something under an hour. We in turn give wind power a proper screen so birds are not killed off and make solar power out of safe materials, and make both that they harvest much more energy on much less space.

And yet again you make a bunch of ridiculous demands while allowing fossil fuels to continue to do whatever they hell they want, with no concern for all the harm it is doing.

How about this?
We put an immediate stop to all oil drilling and transportation, until they can demonstrate they can do so with no spills at all ever.
Likewise, we put a stop to all coal mining, until they can demonstrate perfect ability to prevent black lung.

Then in 20 or so years, if they manage, they can be allowed to start again.

Why aren't you making these demands?
Because you are too busy sucking the dick of big oil.

You don't give a damn how horrible fossil fuels are, how much damage they do; you just ignore it all, and demand that alternatives need to be perfect, rather than simply better.

These are not ridiculous demands.

These are called rules of accountability.

Listen, if I make a toaster, and on the highest setting, it sometimes lights bread on fire, I need to add a shut-off thermostat.  If it always does it on the lowest setting, and I tell people (our alternative) toasting bread over a wood fire is a filthy habit that needs to stop, that's politician level redirection, and any sensible person should tell me to clean up my act!

These bugs are not worked out.
So governments telling people they MUST do these things to combat climate change are running a scam.

No, sorry, I don't think I will buy such a toaster.

Only, these electric cars? They do catch fire. Often enough that they did have to create safety features around it. The thing is, unlike a toaster, you can't simply unplug a car and move it to a brick circle to burn itself out. You are inside that "toaster."

So again, you don't want these green energy people to put any good faith brakes on the tech for basic safety to human, plant, or animal life. Would you trust God if he made the same promises you did? Be honest (for once).

All beings, from the highest life form to the lowest, must live with other life in peace. It doesn't matter to me... but if you don't, you cannot claim to be for the environment. Such false claims should not be made.

These are not ridiculous demands.

Yes, they are. As demonstrated by you not making the same demands for fossil fuels.

You are basically demanding the alternatives need to be perfect, rather than just better.

If it always does it on the lowest setting

Then you are appealing to yet another strawman with no connection to reality.

Only, these electric cars? They do catch fire.

So do petrol powered cars.
This is not an argument.

So again, you don't want these green energy people to put any good faith brakes on the tech for basic safety to human, plant, or animal life.

You are acting entirely in bad faith.

All beings, from the highest life form to the lowest, must live with other life in peace.

And fossil fuels don't allow that.

Ultimately your fake concern for the environment is between you and God. If he forgives you, then so do I. But neither will I believe you when you tell me that you are doing this for the good of "the planet" (it has a name, you know, we call it Earth). We don't need to bulldoze trees to meet our energy needs.

https://www.cfact.org/2021/07/12/why-net-zero-is-neither-possible-nor-desirable-the-canadian-example-part-one/

Most of the 16% of the world’s energy needs not supplied by fossil fuels are met by nuclear and hydroelectric energy sources. Five per cent are met by so-called ‘renewable’ energy of which 3% is from biomass and 2% from wind and solar energy. Net zero, as defined by its proponents, involves no expansion of nuclear energy, but instead increasing the uses of wind, solar and biomass energy alone to replace the 84% of energy supplied by oil, natural gas and coal. They claim they can do this in less than 30 years. Sensible people should be laughing hysterically.

Even if you did intend to replace oil, biomass would be at the top of the list (only 3% right now) because nuclear power has a chance of going Chernobyl/Fukushima on you, and hydroelectric power is a perpetual energy fallacy (countries that switched full to it had blackouts when it didn't have enough tide or whatever).
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly7nxz48klo
Biomass is simply a matter of making car engines able to burn a wider threshold of things, then having waste companies gasify their trash and  sell it to oil companies to resell. Without cutting down a single tree nor mining any additional ground, you can actually shrink the piles of trash we have pretty easily. Although you can also build cars to do this themselves.
Let's leave biomass out of the goofy wind and solar idea. We'd still need to build shipping or pipelines though to get this from point A to B. Unlike wind and solar, this could be expanded with no real harm to the (real) environment.

Ultimately your fake concern for the environment is between you and God.

No, ultimately that is all in your head. Both your claims that my concern is fake, and your imaginary fiend.

We don't need to bulldoze trees to meet our energy needs.

So care to explain the pipeline, and the open cut mines?

Even if you did intend to replace oil, biomass would be at the top of the list

No, it wouldn't, because of just how inefficient it is compared to alternatives in terms of space.
But again, I'm not opposed to biofuels.

hydroelectric power is a perpetual energy fallacy

Only to complete morons that don't understand how it works.

Biomass is simply a matter of making car engines able to burn a wider threshold of things, then having waste companies gasify their trash and  sell it to oil companies to resell.

That would not produce enough to power the world.

Unlike wind and solar, this could be expanded with no real harm to the (real) environment.

You mean unlike wind and solar, this has already caused massive harm to the environment.

Oh really.

So when you've stripped all the trees and grass from the country (like Haiti!)

in the name of the environment, I suppose I can sing a variant of One Tin Soldier about the desolate land you bulldozed to make "green energy."

Did it ever occur to you that nature doesn't in fact happen naturally? That for life to appear is in fact a deliberate defiance of the tendency toward decay and death, and that for a rocky crag to be covered in green is in fact something tremendously strange? While you act as an Agent of Apophis, plowing away everything in an attempt to revert Earth back into formless void, it doesn't occur to you you are just showing your hatred of things that are decent.

What did these poor things ever do to you?

So when you've stripped all the trees and grass from the country (like Haiti!)

You mean like following your suggestion of biofuels from wood? Which resulted in mass deforestation?

in the name of the environment

No, that was following the mentality you support, going for efficiency and not giving a damn about the environment.

Did it ever occur to you that nature doesn't in fact happen naturally? That for life to appear is in fact a deliberate defiance of the tendency toward decay and death, and that for a rocky crag to be covered in green is in fact something tremendously strange? While you act as an Agent of Apophis, plowing away everything in an attempt to revert Earth back into formless void, it doesn't occur to you you are just showing your hatred of things that are decent.

Did it ever occur to you that you are desperately clinging to a delusional fantasy, and trying to vilify people for recognise your BS?

I haven't read your post yet thanks to ignore feature, but I'm sure you've got more excuses.



I want you to look at these trees right in the face, and apologize for clearing them to build this:

I want you to look at these trees right in the face, and apologize for clearing them to build this:

What about the oil pipeline you love so much?
What about the mines for silica to pump into the ground for fracking you love so much?
What about the countless other open cut mines?
What about all the trees in Haiti that were felled to make charcoal?

Where are your appologies?

Yet again, you make demands of others, which you do not follow yourself, nor do you expect big oil to follow, because you're too busy sucking their dick.

Oh I see. So silica is "good" when you how hundreds of solar panels break down, even though there are also metal shards (unlike coal or oil plants where there is a solid sheet of metal, these are tiny strips that can prove dangerous to wildlife) and battery. But it's "bad" when you get oil from it. Second, I don't care about fracking. As I've said before, trash to fuel is more my thing.

Actually, the trees were felled in Haiti for a far simpler reason. They are a welfare dystopia and they cut down wood for burning but never planted any farmland in its place. The supposed story of Haiti's energy needs doesn't pan out. Why can't they just use solar power?  No, the reason it doesn't pan out is because this story conveniently brushes aside political reasons. Like that a bunch of gangs run things aside from a corrupt despot, and the population is poor and not well educated, with the US dropping money every time there is a hurricane.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/desperate-haitians-survive-on-mud-cookies/

Oh I see. So silica is "good" when you how hundreds of solar panels break down, even though there are also metal shards (unlike coal or oil plants where there is a solid sheet of metal, these are tiny strips that can prove dangerous to wildlife) and battery.

Quite the opposite. I'm pointing out YOUR hypocrisy.
That you are happy with mining and destruction of the environment and so on, as long as it is for oil. But if alternatives do just a tiny bit of damage, far less than for your beloved oil, it is suddenly a tragedy.
Likewise, a single bird get killed by a wind turbine, and it's a tragedy. But an oil tanker spills its contents into the ocean, killing loads of wildlife and taking decades to even partially recover, its perfectly fine with you.

Actually, the trees were felled in Haiti for a far simpler reason.

Can't get much simpler than the reason already provided.
They were cut down to turn into charcoal to sell.

No need for any extra crap.

Quite the opposite. I'm pointing out YOUR hypocrisy. That you are happy with mining and destruction of the environment and so on, as long as it is for oil. But if alternatives do just a tiny bit of damage, far less than for your beloved oil, it is suddenly a tragedy.

You are not doing a good job then.

Perhaps if you bothered to read (that is where my hypocrisy is, I often don't read your posts either), you'd understand that that is not actually my position. You're making a strawman (this is part of why I've stopped reading your posts, it's a two-way street).

Acres and acres of forests and farms bulldozed is hardly "a little bit". Also, when it is not enough energy, you know that they will do. Make more room, of course. And how will they do that? By turning those acres into miles.  Meanwhile, most oil derricks? They make tiny pinpricks to pump out liquid.

But that's not even what I want to do. That's not what I'm in favor of.
I'm just telling you to get some damned perspective. What I want is different.

I want to turn this...

into this...


so that this dump above disappears and instead is used for this...


Unlike you bastards, I actually like green things. As you'll notice that wood wasn't on the list. Only lawn waste (leaves, grass clippings, rotten vegetable matter), which are also sorted into compost for soil as demand is for such.

Will this require factories to do?
Yes, but I see no reason that the same companies that refine gasoline couldn't make some machine to sort all that out.
This is substantially different from this

fucking

eyesore.


Just because you build solar panels on forest or mountain land doesn't make them green.
It just makes you an asshole.
Build solar panels if you want on already ecologically barren land. Like here.

You are not doing a good job then.

You mean you are ignoring it.
Everyone else can still see it.

you'd understand that that is not actually my position. You're making a strawman

If that was the case, you would be able to respond, rather than continually fleeing.

Acres and acres of forests and farms bulldozed is hardly "a little bit".

Compared to what is required for fossil fuels and your ideas, it is.

Meanwhile, most oil derricks? They make tiny pinpricks to pump out liquid.

And you then ignore all the infrastructure required.
How many acres of forests were cleared for your crappy oil pipeline you decided to call beautiful?
How many acres of land were cleared for the open cut silica mine used for fracking which you decided to use to say solar bad?
How much ecological damage has been caused by various oil spills?


And that is really easy to show your hypocrisy:

They call this "6 most beautiful solar farms". I see forest torn up to make room for something that in twenty years will not only not work but will litter the forest with metal and glass.

vs

And this the job that was done by the pipeline company. Clean, contained, and professional. Did it look great when they started out? Decidedly not. But they cleaned it up. Pretty sure that those Native Americans could move back into those lands, and not mind at all.

You are quite happy for loads of forests to be cleared to make way for a pipeline which can fail and leak oil all over the ground (oil which contains toxic heavy metals), but object to far less being cleared for a solar farm.


You are repeatedly defending these fossil fuels, demanding alternatives be perfect rather than simply better.

And there are plenty more examples, like your objection to the silica mine, before it was pointed out that it was used for fracking for solar panels, after which you just ignore it.
Or your objection to the deforestation of Haiti, which was to make charcoal, not solar panels.

Unlike you bastards, I actually like green things.

If you did, you wouldn't be defending oil so much.

Because turning waste into power will not remove the need for an additional power source. There simply isn't enough.

Personally I would prefer to reduce the amount of waste rather than just burn it.
e.g. stop making crappy phones which get thrown out the following year when the new model comes out.
Make things more repairable, and have kids learn the basic skills needed to repair things in school.

And that waste still produces waste.

As you'll notice that wood wasn't on the list.

Even after you suggested using it. Why?

Will this require factories to do?
Yes, but I see no reason that the same companies that refine gasoline couldn't make some machine to sort all that out.

Because the process is substantially different.

Haiti was not deforested to make charcoal. Haiti was deforested because they have corrupt dictator and a bunch of gangs roaming about taking everything of note.

I see a single clean pipeline through a forested zone, making a nice clearing in the woods. And then I see a huge box of gray, where hundreds of these panels stand. The forest looks dead in off-season but if there are any heavy metals, these will leach into the soil. Making these trees dead for real. And then there's the cleanup or lack thereof. Solar panels are just left without any accountability. In fact, they're non-recyclable in many cases, because there are too many materials. Old pipeline are just steel. Steel can be resold to scrap dealers, and reforged as something else. That pipeline once done is out of the picture, and the forest goes to as it was before. So no, it's not an eyesore. Clean line, not a messy box not built so much over an area as passing through it, and if it needs to be taken apart, all parts are reusable. Silicon is the best ingedient in solar panels. And there aren't really facilities to deal with some of the other potential things in them.

good ol' innocent clean oil just working hand in hand with nature and trees...



google image search:  ecuador oil chevron








free donziger!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger

Oil is good for the environment.

but the trees!
the TREES!


http://www.ejolt.org/2015/08/texaco-chevron-case-ecuador/



During this period, Texaco drilled 339 wells in 15 petroleum fields and 627 toxic wastewater pits were abandoned, along with other elements of petroleum infrastructure. Moreover, obsolete and highly polluting technologies were used during these years of exploitation. The deforestation of 2,000,000 hectares of land is attributed to petroleum operations in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon, as well as massive water contamination with toxic substances and heavy metals. The wastes derived from petroleum operations and accidental crude oil spills have had a major effect on forests, rivers, and estuaries:

“It has also been estimated that the company deliberately dumped tons of toxic drilling and maintenance wastes and 19 billion gallons of produced wastes into the environment without treatment or monitoring, despite oil industry standards that suggest reinjecting the wastes back into the ground. In addition to routine deliberate discharges, accidental spills were common. During the time that Texaco operated the main trans-Ecuadorean pipeline, spills from that line alone sent an estimated 16.8 million gallons of crude into the environment. By comparison, the Exxon Valdez spilled 10.8 million gallons into the Prince William Sound in the largest oil spill in the history of the United States.”

Haiti was not deforested to make charcoal.

Yes it was.
The reasons why they did that do not change the fact that the trees where cut down and turned into charcoal to be sold.

I see a single clean pipeline through a forested zone, making a nice clearing in the woods. And then I see a huge box of gray, where hundreds of these panels stand.

Because you cherry pick your photos.
But now you are just said that they are grey?
Before you complained about all the trees being cleared.
Where is your complaint for all the trees cut down for the pipline?

Again, this shows your hypocrisy.

if there are any heavy metals, these will leach into the soil. Making these trees dead for real.

Yes, if the pipeline leaks (as plenty do) it will leach heavy metals into the soils, potentially killing the nearby plants.
But the oil itself leaking can do that as well.

And then there's the cleanup or lack thereof.

Yes, the massive environment devastation from oil spills, where the rich oil barons get off with just a slap on the wrist with minimal clean-up with places still contaminated from spills decades ago.

Solar panels are just left without any accountability.

Which is what you have continually appealed for, no accountability, no legislation, no regulations. So why object now?
Because now instead of it being something you love being regulated, it is instead something you hate and want to stop.

In fact, they're non-recyclable in many cases, because there are too many materials.

If that was the case ore mining would be impossible.

Old pipeline are just steel. Steel can be resold to scrap dealers, and reforged as something else.

Assuming they bother with that rather than just leaving it there to break down and let out any remaining oil and heavy metals?

it's not an eyesore

Something being an eyesore is entirely subjective.
I think that pipeline looks like complete crap.

What is objective, is the amount of trees/land cleared to make way for it.

Again, if you want to object to solar so much, for the reasons you have done, you need to be objecting to oil and the like as well. Otherwise you are just demonstrating your hypocrisy. And with how you are defending it, you are truly showing your hypocrisy and how much you love sucking the dick of big oil.

side note

curious - where does Bulma think oil came from?




side side note

in the prairies where there are no trees - is it ok for solar?
and what about retrofitting all those roofs that people have on their houses and warehouses with solar?
there're no trees growing on your roof.
or are we just super unfair and unbalanced?

Because you cherry pick your photos.
But now you are just said that they are grey?
Before you complained about all the trees being cleared.
Where is your complaint for all the trees cut down for the pipline?

On the contrary. I saw a great deal of pictures that were clearly biased by pro-pipeline protest propaganda (yes, I had fun with this alliteration). These pictures all cherry pick one moment of time, and not the finished result.

Trees can be replanted if the space in question isn't being occupied by other matter.  Which is precisely the problem. These solar panels are effectively future trash. Even if the silicon was the same as sand (it isn't, sand is a granular composite including silicon, but not pure silicon), there is also the battery and metal garbage. Remember that with piping the only thing to dispose of is oily steel piping. 

So lemme re-explain this. The metal pipe, the latest picture is fixed up. The environment is cleaned.

The solar panels, the latest result is actually this.


My brother's nephew took a shit and wiped it all over the place. He was four. What's your excuse?

During this period, Texaco drilled 339 wells in 15 petroleum fields and 627 toxic wastewater pits were abandoned, along with other elements of petroleum infrastructure. Moreover, obsolete and highly polluting technologies were used during these years of exploitation. The deforestation of 2,000,000 hectares of land is attributed to petroleum operations in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon, as well as massive water contamination with toxic substances and heavy metals. The wastes derived from petroleum operations and accidental crude oil spills have had a major effect on forests, rivers, and estuaries:

You're comparing their actions in Ecuador to in United States. In the US, they are subject to review from environmental watchdogs, who hypocritically charge them at every turn they can find while giving solar panels a free pass. Because of this, oil drilling is forced to be fairly responsible.

Yes it was.
The reasons why they did that do not change the fact that the trees where cut down and turned into charcoal to be sold.

Actually, it makes a great difference. Under ordinary circumstances, people do not get rid of an entire forest just to make charcoal. This is not about human goodness or altruism or some such other crap. It's about pragmatism. Citizens of a country want to, you know, survive, so they prioritize things like growing fruit trees and rice paddies over collecting charcoal for energy. This is the actions of big government or thugs. Same difference.

curious - where does Bulma think oil came from?

Oil comes from pressurized vegetable matter over time. Let's explain this in a way you can understand. I have a donut, which takes only a few minutes to make, but has high sugar and fat, and is not filling at all. Or I have a goat curry, which can take as much as 30 minutes to make, is very filling and pretty healthy.

Wood is not actually that effective to log for fuel.

The space required for transporting, storing, and drying an equivalent heating value of chips is 13 times greater than the space needed for oil and four times greater than the space needed for coal3. This difference results in higher utilization costs for chips in comparison with fossil fuels.

13 times greater for the same amount of energy.

Look at this chart. If you log one tree, you have to wait months to use it for fuel, as its moisture content is too high. Or you could sweep up pine needles with a broom, and not cut down a single tree. You know what also doesn't cut down a single tree? Going into a field, putting an oil derrick there, and getting oil. Or going into a garbage dump, sorting the burnable and non-burnable, and tossing paper and plastic into the burnable. Yes, synthesizing gas would completely wipe out the need to clear any trees, except for what you need for space for processing.

On the contrary. I saw a great deal of pictures that were clearly biased by pro-pipeline protest propaganda

And you happily accepted them.

Trees can be replanted if the space in question isn't being occupied by other matter.

And if the space is not intentionally being kept clear, like it is around the pipline.
They don't want trees right beside it.

These solar panels are effectively future trash.

Just like the oil pipeline.

there is also the battery

No, there isn't.
Solar panels do not have batteries.
You can set up your own off-grid system with one, but that is separate to the solar panel.

and metal garbage

Like the pipeline.

Remember that with piping the only thing to dispose of is oily steel piping.

And all the support structure for it, and don't forget that that oil has heavy metals contaminating that pipeline.

The solar panels, the latest result is actually this.

No, A result is that. Just like for a particular pipeline, that is A result.

You're comparing their actions in Ecuador to in United States.

No, we are showing just how bad oil is or can be.

In the US, they are subject to review from environmental watchdogs

Who can do the same for solar panels.

Actually, it makes a great difference.

No, it doesn't.
It shows your hypocrisy and dishonesty. You were quite happy to bring it up to use it as an argument against solar. But now you are making excuses.

Look at this chart. If you log one tree, you have to wait months to use it for fuel

Or millions of years for oil.

Or you could sweep up pine needles with a broom

And have wasted loads of effort sweeping it up, and have so little and thus so little energy it isn't funny.

Yes, synthesizing gas would completely wipe out the need to clear any trees, except for what you need for space for processing.

Synthesising gas from where?