UN Environment Program Rejects WNA's Money. Won't Allow Sponsorship Of Sustainable Innovation Forum (SIF17) 1

Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:

12 Comments

    1. Many nuclear power advocates ARE “Greens” — the scientific-minded and objective sort of Greens, though. Looks like the “other” type of Greens consider nuclear power to be some sort of “heresy.” Thus, there has been an “excommunication” of the scientific ones.

      1. @Rick Armknecht

        While many scientists and engineers are dedicated ecologists and environmentally aware, I would not call them Greens because they are generally not members of a political group that borders on a religion. They do not adhere to any set of illogical talking points or a set of beliefs that approaches a catechism.

        Some might call themselves “green” with a lower case letter. That term is often short for environmentally conscious or concerned.

      2. It’s the difference between helping your uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.

        (I love the twisted examples.  It makes them memorable.)

  1. ““We prioritise the renewables revolution, such as wind and solar energy, as well as encouraging the ongoing shift from fossil fuel,’’ Mr Sahba said.”

    This is the really interesting – yet sad – bit. Priotizing wind and solar does not lead to a shift away from fossil fuels; Germany is a good example of this. They’ve priotized wind and solar; so they got wind and solar, lots of it – they currently have more installed wind and solar capacity than their average national grid load. Yet, they use almost as much fossil fuels in power generation today as they did before their “Energiewende”.

    The correct phrase for Mr. Sabha would appear to be, ““We prioritise the renewables revolution, such as wind and solar energy, in stead of encouraging the ongoing shift from fossil fuels”.

    1. Germany is very devoted to installing wind and solar capacity.

      Germany is not at all dedicated to reducing CO2 emissions.

  2. I think history is going to eat them greens and spit them out due to their bad taste.

    This reminds me a bit of the Middle Ages where the folks in charge would not accept the new science. It is history repeating itself and future generations are going to shake their heads at the narrow minded obstinance of these folks.

    I see little difference between them and the conservatives who do not accept global warming as a fact.

    1. The folks who do not accept global climate change as a fact are doing less harm than the “renewables” only people.

      The “renewables” only people are wasting vast resources and are likely to create issue-exhaustion as it becomes apparent to the larger public that huge resources have been expended for zero results, except for more expensive necessities.

      The deniers are just sitting on their hands doing nothing. They aren’t even delaying the implication of a solution, because the “renewables” crowd have hijacked the solutions.

      The deniers may actually be helping to put a little bit of a brake on the wasteful, useless efforts of the “renewables” crowd.

      And there a chance that if you present the deniers with a non-insane solution package, they will be more agreeable to recognizing that there is a problem. I remain convinced that many of them deny the problem, because they recognize that the proposed “solutions” are insane.

      1. “I remain convinced that many of them deny the problem, because they recognize that the proposed “solutions” are insane.”

        Well,…………one of the proposed solutions is nuclear energy. I don’t think that one is insane. I don’t think wind and solar are insane either. However, they are a limited solution, whereas, nukes can solve the whole enchilada.

        If proper regulation could be applied to that industry (nuclear) vs over-regulation, it would also be a very cost effective solution.

      2. In what media outlets is the general public seeing nuclear energy proposed as a solution to climate change?

        Unless they are paired with available hydro, wind and solar do little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. Since they are a “solution” which does not solve the problem, they are insane solutions.