I seldom watch Fox News. This is part due to the fact that I do not have cable. And part due to the fact that it is Fox News. The only times that I watch Fox News are when a screen is forced in front of my face, usually at my dentist's office. Yesterday, Jason's Deli had Fox News on its screens during lunch time. So, as my husband loaded up his salad bar plate, I watched an interview with some talking head about the environment. It went something like this:
"Sure, a few solar panels on a few roofs are good. But the laws of physics tell us that the sun does not shine all the time, and the wind does not blow all the time. But coal is something this country can count on." (smug smile)
My mouth pretty much just dropped open. I am pretty sure that the sun and the wind are more reliable than fossil fuels. Granted, I'm a social worker, not a physicist...
3 comments:
"But the laws of physics tell us that the sun does not shine all the time, and the wind does not blow all the time."
That's why God created batteries. :)
The only way to watch Fox News is through The Daily Show because without Jon Stewart's perspective, it's just too horribly depressing.
It makes me ill to think that someone got paid to say that on television...
(Disclaimer--this ends up running far longer than I'd initially intended, and changes the subject a few times...)
Though, to moderate my own comment, try to avoid just being flippant... The strength of solar, wind, etc. is in their long-term application, their renewability. Relative to the time span of human civilizations, coal and other fossil fuels have a fixed quantity. We'll run out eventually. We may be able to debate what that quantity is, or delay the inevitable by efficient management, but if those resources continue to be used, they will be used up eventually. At that point, we will either have replaced them with something else, adapted to a life less electrified and mechanically powered, or run into crisis mode while we scramble to survive. With respect to the same time spans, wind, sun, tides, the earth's heated core, etc. are effectively eternally available.
On the other hand, going by the timeline of an election cycle, or an individual human lifetime, coal is far more available, efficient and consistent than wind and solar power. The output of windmills and photovoltaics is directly related to the input of nature, something we can't control, but can only attempt to strategically exploit. The solar equivalent of the Hoover Dam would basically require blanketing half of Arizona with solar cells. And, even in the cloudless desert, output would fluctuate seasonally, by time of day, with conditions...
What is needed is the foresight, discipline and sacrifice required to recognize that a transition is inevitable, and ought to be planned, prepared and executed before we hit a crisis point; to recognize that the transition will be expensive, painful and difficult. In the long (or medium) term, carbon-based fuels are neither economically nor environmentally sustainable. (In a parallel to the way the unregulated free-market capitalism is neither environmentally nor economically sustainable, and eventually eats itself up, but that's another thread, I suppose.)
In the near term, when you've built your life in such a way that you're coping and maintaining because of your massive amphetamine intake, and you've heard what withdrawal is like, it's a whole lot easier to shoot up than to check in to rehab. (I get so much accomplished on speed! I can't afford to take a month off--everything will fall apart. I'll deal with it when I get to the point I can't manage any more...) It's especially difficult when you're the Wall Street executive and the only rehab option you can see looks like your hippie cousin with his dubious herbal remedies.
You need to find two people. Could make a start with two people. You have to have somebody from each opposing side who is both willing and able to address quantifiable facts and implications free from rhetoric and politics. Then they've got to convince the rest of us.
When we know that we're right, we have a tendency to hide behind rhetoric and call it fact. We have a tendency to claim to be engaging the opposition while in actuality just trading catch phrases and making no progress. When we refuse to acknowledge the possibility of finding a middle ground that does not involve compromise (this is actually possible), or that, barring that, compromise does not need to mean capitulation; when we refuse to recognize the basic human dignity and legitimate concerns hidden behind the other side's rhetoric, we end up with the current state of the abortion and gun control 'debates' in this country, with a sixth decade of Israel-Palestine conflict, environment vs. economy.
When we side-step politics to look at what is possible, and what is required, then we put a man on the moon by the end of this decade. Then we stick around to help turn countries we've decimated in war into economic powerhouses, rivals and allies.
Post a Comment