The Biden way of green

Before you get me wrong, let me first say that regarding the necessity of green energy, I am 100% with Biden because in a green/hydrogen future:

• The west will be independent of oil&gas producing countries, most of them in conflict or war all the time!
• There will be less climate catastrophe where hard-working people lose everything they have worked for
• Prices will be more stable as the sun doesn’t engage in foreign politics
• And we can maintain our planet for our children.

However, the green transition doesn’t take place overnight and, in the meanwhile, we still need fossil fuel.
And, Mr Biden, turning down your national tap while filling the gap with import, doesn’t make the world any greener. The only way is to boost green energy and hydrogen storage so that we won’t be needing fossil fuel in the future.

Right now we are not that far, unfortunately. In fact, I would recommend every country to tap the hell out of their own national gas and oil sources to be independent of Mr. f@@@ Putin! Let him drown in his own sludge!

And at the same time, let’s roll up our sleeves and finally get this green transition done. Technology is there. Together we can do it!

 

Do you favor nuclear power?

 

This is all I need to see to know that your following words are going to include a lot of erroneous claims.

"Green energy" is not necessary... at all. Hydrocarbon-based energy is more than plentiful and works very well.

"The West" (I'll assume this includes the States of America) ARE oil/gas producing countries, and CAN BE independent of OPEC-allied nations IF ONLY their own governments would let them be. The States of America are SWIMMING in oil... Why must we be dependent upon OPEC? Biden is a moron.

There is no such thing as "climate catastrophe". It is just a meaningless buzzword that liberals use to scare people. You need to actually define the words that you hurl around.

Not true.

What does "maintain our planet" mean?? What is the "issue" that "needs fixing"?

We don't use fossils for fuel... they don't burn very well. We use HYDROCARBONS instead...

True... It just bends the middle class over furniture and makes them into the poor class. FJB! F the Democrat Party!

We don't use fossils for fuel dude... We use HYDROCARBONS... They work VERY well, so why don't we just keep using them?? Oil is a wonderful resource that forms naturally underground, so why don't we just keep making good use of it instead of returning back to the stone age?

I agree. All countries should be tapping the hell out of the oceans of oil in the ground beneath them. F the 6uild 6ack 6etter "green new deal" bullsplatter!

Why do we need to "transition to green"?? What is the problem with hydrocarbons??

 

Sorry, I stopped at 100$ in line with Biden..

Biden, all by himself, is as we speak destroying the country of Ukraine in his vain glory to support Putin and Russian Oil interests. These are facts that unfortunately belie any response from the OP. I dig hydrogen, as long as it can be produced in a manner that doesn't otherwise take more energy that it produces. Why not nuclear? And while we're on it, what is this climate catastrophe you speak of? I bet Russian and Ukrainian soldiers can give you a good idea of that should you want to visit.

 

But most Environmentalists are an emotional bunch. "Not in my backyard"

There is logic, and then there is politics.


Well anyway, to be totally fair about everything here, most of that national tap involves fracking, and environmentalists really hate that.

 

If the technology is there, why do you need government so much?


related thread: For those who want clean energy, why don't you buy it?

 

I support government run modern nuclear power, not privately owned

 

Are you sure this wonderful resource will be still available for your grandchildren and for their kids? Because if not, you certainly will return to the stone age. Besides, oil is a raw material for making plastics. With a 7-billion population on this planet, it is not very clever to burn one's raw materials, unless you want to return to cars with wooden dashboards and TV screens of glass.

 

No one is turning down any taps. US producers can't immediately make up for the difference no matter how hard they tried. As for making up for the difference in the future, - they don't want to invest in new equipment knowing oil prices will come down and production becomes unprofitable, and the investment is lost.

 

The more we use the more we find.

 

Why the distinction?

 

Your neighbor knows he can't dump his sh** in the street where you live. If we have the same decency about not emitting sh** into the air, the government is not needed at all.

 

Yes.

N/A, due to above answer.

There is plenty of oil to go around dude. It isn't depleting.

 

Fair enough, so let's call it: devestation due to climatologic change.
By the way, channels like Fox News don't look like a bunch of liberal lefties to me, and yet they use words like "floods hitting record levels" and "a 500-year flood".
There are thousands of newscasts like this all over the world. All of them liars??...

 

They are all in error. There has been no increase in flooding.
Pielke Jr. on AR6
2021 › 08 › 09 › pielke-jr-on-ar6
equate to increased flooding: "heavier rainfall does not always lead to greater flooding" ... explained this in 1999 (Pielke and Downton 1999) ... Flooding

Flooding
Confidence in global trends is low
Some places up, some down
Same as AR5

So don’t claim floods are increasing
Don’t say they are “climate driven”

 

I prefer they belong to the people, when paid off, it's cheap electricity

 

I'm not sure nuclear power plants are things to buy on price.

 

nothing to do with price

has to do with it belonging to the people or a for-profit company - the cost to build it is the same

oil on federal land should be done by government too, the people own it

 

Of course it has to do with price. Ever wonder how our decrepit infrastructure (bridges, etc.) got so bad? Government failure to budget for periodic maintenance and upgrade investment, that's how.

 

I take no issue with green energy. I think it needs to expand to include nuclear energy. That being said at this stage things like wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuels. So we need them to continue our way of life.

I agree with you Biden is making a bad move. You can't really force this it requires likely decades more of development.

 

Crappy infrastructure hasn't kept up with the expanding human footprint

 

This is also meaningless gibberbabble.

 

for-profits take shortcuts to save money, and the government has to clean up their mess when it goes south

 

Hi, Jack. It is all about common sense and balance. Green transition is great for the reasons I mentioned but phasing down on own national drilling and on nuclear at a higher speed than green power can grow is plain stupid. It converts green into poverty which is very damaging for the green cause and I hope that environmentalists will begin to recognize that. In the end, we can never get around the fact that people need their daily bread on the table.

 

Got any real life examples?