Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Unified climate

Comments

Return To Article
  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    May 18, 2014 6:37 a.m.

    Belief is only something I can count on or depend on. The wind won't blow and the sun doesn't shine all the time. The thing that I do believe is the preconceived closed mind s of people.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    May 18, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    What I don't understand is what's so great about our fossil fuel dependency status quo? It pollutes our air and water, it creates yo-yo pricing and economic shocks in our economy with every global political hiccup (e.g., think Putin's gas and take over of Ukraine), it guzzles water, traps miners underground, it funds terrorism and forces us into Mideast wars (e.g., first Iraqi war), etc.

    Renewable energy (such as wind and solar) is clean, is price stable, doesn't consume precious water, poses generally safer work conditions, creates domestic jobs in manufacturing and installation, and pours its economic benefits into rural, agricultural communities... and no military is needed to secure it! What's wrong with that?

    Many red states, including Iowa, Kansas, Texas, and others see renewable energy's economic benefits... conservatives, we should be following their lead... not defending the Koch brothers and dirty energy!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 18, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    Yes Steve,
    pollution is like peeing in a pool.

    And if everyone keeps breaking the rules, then NOBODY is happy,
    even the guys responsible for doing it.

    And good put about 3rd world countries.

    For Americans to keep burning at rate 10 times the rest of the them,
    How can we be the envy of the world,
    and expect India and China - with a population 8 tomes ours -
    to quietly sit on the side lines wanting in,
    and NOT SHOW them a better way?!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 18, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    There are some fine exceptions to the generalisation, but really it's not going to happen here. You'll see it in the posts today.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    May 18, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    Steve is correct: America is the greatest country on Earth. It is time we start acting like it.

    America should be the leader, as Steve asserted. Unfortunately, the current left-wing administration is too weak and afraid to lead. Indeed, it is so afraid of doing anything that might violate notions of political correctness, that it's default position is to do nothing.

    The American people must do what is right, even it means that they must be the leaders, rather than the government. Thomas F. Meagher once said that "If the American government ever abdicates its duty to lead, the American people must take up the banner of leadership!"

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 18, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    Germany, a country that is much smaller than ours, and which receives far less sunlight, is currently generating 3.5 times more energy from the sun than we are.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    May 18, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    We did not create the climate cannot control it. Been record cold in many places. Besides warm weather more pleasant than cold weather. Just a way to use what we can't control to control what we do.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 18, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    There are those who claim that the earth is getting warmer, even though data shows otherwise. There are those in the "warming" group who have stopped using "global warming" and resort to "global change". In other words, since facts dispute their core argument, the change their core argument.

    I often drive past the large windmill generators in the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon. More than half the time, they are not turning and they are not generating electricity. Several neighbors have installed solar panels on their homes. They all have computers connected to those panels to record the amount of electricity generated. ALL of them are disappointed with the results. Those panels are not generating as much electricity as promised. At the rate that those panels generate electricity, those panels will never pay for themselves before they need to be replaced.

    Yes, we can change "habits". Yes, we can landscape with plants that require little water. Yes, we can drive fuel efficient cars. No, we cannot change the climate.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 18, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    @higv
    Acid rain, air pollution, ozone hole...we've had a lot of influence from things we've thrown into the air over the last couple centuries. California and Arizona have their warmest Jan-April on record so far this year (while Michigan and Wisconsin have their 3rd coolest, globally it's around a top 10 warmest January-April).

    It's not as simple as just saying warm weather (and either way I prefer colder weather). If sea level rises just a few feet that'll displace millions of people globally. Increasing ocean acidification, melting glaciers, and sometimes warmer isn't better if it turns Spain into something closer to Morocco for climate.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    May 18, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    To Roland Kayser's point, Germany's is now getting over 50% of their energy needs from renewables. Hmm, I wonder why we can't? Do you think it's because we've sold our country to the 1% or what?

  • RightWingNut Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 18, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    I assume you know a lot about global warming. How much has it warmed in the last 20 yrs? When in the earth's history did the climate not change? What perfect/ideal climate are you comparing our current climate to? When did that climate exist? How far have we deviated from that ideal climate? How long have humans been causing harm to the climate? Were there any changes in climate before humans? If humans stopped doing all the "bad" things they are doing to the climate, what would happen to the climate?

    I am civil. Would love to have a discussion in a calm manner. But it seems if you bring up logical rational questions to this movement you are immediately marginalized and labeled anti science and a "denier." This is generally from those who believe to be very tolerant.

    Look, I don't believe in this. IMO it is the biggest power grab hoax EVER perpetrated on mankind. It is a mixture of personal ambition, bad science, politics and bias. There are bad people in government who have made millions on this scheme and at the end of the day want control of more of your life.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    May 18, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    We all live in a greenhouse. We are filling that greenhouse with toxic vapors. Eventually, we will choke. Everyone knows that, except the conservatives among us who are all for increasing the output of toxic vapors. It's a form of insanity.
    Wouldn't it be nice if we could make a smoking room like they have at the SL Airport and make all the conservatives stay in it so the rest of us could breathe?

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    May 18, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    OK, deniers --

    All "Global Warming" aside,

    Why is energy independence BAD, or Wrong?
    Why is green, clean and renewable energy BAD, or Wrong?
    Why is an infinite energy supply BAD, or Wrong?
    Why is building a better world and future for our posterity BAD, or Wrong?

    Seriously, If you can't see that,
    Then yours is nothing more than a one-sided, biased, political rant.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 18, 2014 3:26 p.m.

    There appear to be only two options for climate change not to be correct. Either the super simple solutions everybody offers on comment boards like this are totally overlooked by the actual scientists because they are idiots or the scientists are controlled by a vast conspiracy.

    I know some folks who work in scientific fields (some related to climate). They seem bright and honest to me. Also, it seems unlikely they would miss simple things that non-scientists know and can roll off their tongues.

    That leaves us with a conspiracy. But I see no viable examples of vast conspiracies where folks are not breaking with the pack like it is going out of style. Stalin had the gulags. Yet there was Soljenitsin and thousands of others. The Mafia kills folks who squeal, yet there is a long list who have testified against the Mafia. These folks risk their lives to report the truth yet we are supposed to believe that scientists (who are incredibly independent in my experience) across all kinds of ethnic, cultural, language and other borders are controlled and virtually none break with the pack?

    It doesn't wash.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 18, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    Re: "The world wants, needs and is waiting for American leadership on global warming."

    No, it isn't.

    The world is waiting to snap up any fossil fuels we don't use, step in and produce any saleable products we refuse to produce, and walk all over us and any weaker neighbor nations, as we intentionally make our economy and our military weak.

    The callow, unsupportable notion of a world anxious to hold hands with America and sing kumbaya as we slide into another dark age, is just the latest dangerous leftist fiction.

    Will we eventually develop better energy sources that have less impact on the earth? Sure. But, we're not there yet [BTW, Germany doesn't produce more than half its power from renewable resources -- fission-based nuclear energy is considered a finite, mineral fuel]. And, when we do get there, market forces will anoint winners and consign losers to the ash heap of history.

    Corrupt political leaders shouldn't be pretending to outthink the much smarter invisible hand.

    In the meantime, a dangerous centrally-planned energy-industry restructure, addressing effects too nuanced to reliably measure, is madness.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    May 18, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    @Mike Richards:

    I have rooftop solar panels, and I am not disappointed at all. The last two months I have generated more electricity than my home used. I'm also very happy with my Camry hybrid, which gets more than 40 miles to the gallon on average.

    The terms "climate change" and "global warming" are both used in the scientific literature and mean different things. "Global warming" refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature."Climate change" , refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature.

    Both terms have been used for decades.

    Of course we can change the climate. We've been changing it for a long time. Admittedly, it will be more difficult to undo the changes we have made, but perhaps we can change the trajectory.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    May 18, 2014 6:40 p.m.

    Show me one piece of solid evidence (not a model) that CO2 is the culprit behind anything weather-related on Earth today, and I might consider CO2 reductions.

    Oh, you can't? I didn't think so. Neither can the experts.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 18, 2014 7:49 p.m.

    @ thinkin man

    Apparently you've never heard of the planet called Venus.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 19, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    Problem is... we can't do ANYTHING until the Legislature tells us to...

  • RightWingNut Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 19, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    Once again. What is an ideal climate? Did it exist 100, 1000, 2000, 5000 years ago? How do you know we don't need to warm up to get there? How do you know we need to cool down to get there? Who decided what is the "ideal" we are comparing our current climate too?

    How many severe storms are considered acceptable? Hurricanes? Tornadoes? Floods? Droughts? They are always occurring? So how many can happen without people saying the sky is falling?

    So many of you know SO much about this. Please enlighten me.

    Who do you think would get more government grant money????????.....A Scientist trying to prove "climate change/disruption." B Scientist trying to prove that this is a hoax. Follow the money.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 19, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    @ugottabkidn

    Re "To Roland Kayser's point, Germany's is now getting over 50% of their energy needs from renewables"...

    Hmmmmm... problem is... I know that's not true.

    A quick Google search would do. Google "Energy in Germany" or "where does Germany get their energy".

    This is what Wikipedia reports...

    Energy in Germany is sourced predominantly by fossil fuels, followed by nuclear power, biomass (wood and biofuels), wind, hydro and solar.

    Germany is one of the largest consumers of energy in the world. In 2009, it consumed energy from the following sources:

    Oil 34.6%
    Bituminous coal 11.1%
    Lignite 11.4%
    Natural gas 21.7%
    Nuclear power 11.0%
    Hydro- and wind power 1.5%
    Others

    Germany is the fifth-largest consumer of oil in the world.
    Germany is the third-largest consumer of natural gas in the world.
    Because of its rich coal deposits it has a long tradition of fueling its economy with coal.

    (All from Wikipedia)

    When people spout things they heard as if they are fact (but they aren't true) it makes people question the rest of the case they post claiming it's fact (because they heard somebody say it).

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    May 19, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    @Irony Guy
    Thanks for that--lol

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 19, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    To "Roland Kayser" you are wrong. The US produces over 500 TWh from green sources, while Germany produces 28 TWh. Last I checked 500 is greater than 28. Unless you want to consider nuclear power as "green power".

    To "LDS Tree-Hugger" those are a bad thing since they will KILL people unless there is a viable replacement. Solar and wind cannot replace gas or coal plants due to their variability. We don't have enough geothermal or hydroelectric to power everything.

    How do you plan on getting rid of the people that would not be able to afford electricity if we went 100% with the current technology in "green" energy?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 19, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    @RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    To "LDS Tree-Hugger" Solar and wind cannot replace gas or coal plants due to their variability. We don't have enough geothermal or hydroelectric to power everything.

    -----

    Solar and wind are available precisley when they are needed most -- during PEAK hours.

    FYI --
    If you knew how a power grid operated, you would know that nuclear is not variable,
    and is a constant source, wind and hydro are opened and closed to augment any system.

    The future is now --
    Solar, wind, hydro will augment -- not 100% replace -- nuclear, geo-thermal, tidal power systems.

    Tell me again --
    Why should we burn coal and gas during the God given Daily light, when we humans need it most?

    You defiant, irrational insistance defies all reason.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 19, 2014 3:56 p.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon,

    Recently went on a tour of the "Solar One" plant in Boulder City, Nevada. You may be disappointed to learn that this and most modern solar plants are a combination solar/gas power. At night (when they get 0 energy from the sun) the gas turns on and heats the boilers and turns the turbines. 25% of the power generated comes from natural gas...

    Don't know if you've noticed... but they don't turn the lights off on the strip at night, that's when they turn them on (when they are getting no energy from the sun). They also use air conditioning at night (it's often above 100 degrees at midnight in LV). But you are right that the peak comes when they have the sun, but I want you to note that they still need a LOT of electricity when the sun is NOT available (so they still use fossil fuels even in the Solar One facility).

    Solar is good... but it will not replace all fossil fuels needed. We need both for the foreseeable future.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 19, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" but they are NOT VIABLE. What that means is that they cost so much more than gas, coal, or nuclear power that their use would bankrupt you if you had to use only solar or wind. Plus, wind and solar are not primary power sources, so you have to have a gas powered plant running idle to pick up any slack the wind and solar can't produce. That means that you have 2 power sources doing the job of 1. That sure doesn't sound efficient.

    Imagine you switch your house over to nothing but wind and solar power. How long would you put up with intermittent power before you connected to a fossil fuel burning source?

    Burning coal and gas during the day time makes sense because you don't have the variability like you get with wind and solar. The sun does not shine with equal intensity throughout the day, and the wind does not blow at a constant rate either.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 19, 2014 6:21 p.m.

    RedShirt

    USS Enterprise, UT

    What that means is that they cost so much more than gas, coal, or nuclear power that their use would bankrupt you if you had to use only solar or wind.

    Imagine you switch your house over to nothing but wind and solar power.

    =======

    All or Nothing,
    All or Nothing,
    All or Nothing.

    Who said All-or-Nothing [hint: Only YOu and 2 bits]

    I said nuclear, hydro, geo-thermal, tidal, wind, solar,
    AND
    Fossil fueled [not your mythical, unscientifically proven Abiogenic petroleum origin theories].

    The problem is yours, not mine -- good evening.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 20, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    @Open Minded Mormon,

    Recently went on a tour of the "Solar One" plant in Boulder City, Nevada. You may be disappointed to learn that this and most modern solar plants are a combination solar/gas power. At night (when they get 0 energy from the sun) the gas turns on and heats the boilers and turns the turbines. 25% of the power generated comes from natural gas...

    ===========

    Doesn't that mean the same amount of power with 25% LESS fuel being burned, and for free, and forever?

    But, you can't see that...

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 20, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" wow, you really are out on a limb.

    Why build 2 power sources when you can do the same thing with 1? Other than nuclear, everything you want to build currently cannot supply the energy needed.

    Geo-thermal does not exist in sufficient quantities to supply the US power needs, unless you are willing to convert Yellowstone into a giant geothermal power plant. Tidal power works well, except when storms roll in and alter the way water is coming in. Wind and solar are variable and require a second power source.

    Nuclear isn't considered a green energy source. Are you sure you want to support that?

    If Abiogenic Petroleum is unscientifically proven, why are so many scientists researching it? Also, why is it that the Russians have found oil at depths below the oldest fossils that would produce oil? You also should realize that fossil fuel theories are unproven. How do you explain the oil wells that were once dry, and now contain oil that is chemically different from the original oil?

    You seem to have problems with anything that doesn't conform to your preconcieved ideas or the commands of your liberal masters.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 22, 2014 10:12 p.m.

    Last time someone said to me what's the worst that could happen if we cut carbon emissions I said .. We could experience global cooling, i. e. the ice age that climate scientists in the 1970's said was going to happen.