Rep. Carbajal Applauds Scheduling of First-Ever Offshore Wind Lease Sale in the Pacific

COAST - good thing that's not true! Pelicans stay within 20 miles of shore, so there shouldn't be too many venturing out there. Even if so, bird repellent technology has come a long way since the Altamont Pass farm was installed 40 years ago. Plus, wind turbines still kill FAR less than coal plants. All great news for the environment!

Yeah, just more ignorant carbon FUD from right-wing social media.

Coast, I'm sure you are huge fan of the EPA and the USA ban of DDT?

Oh this is my favorite one "b-b-but the animals!!" As if wind turbines kill a significant number of animals or the GOQ gives a rats behind about the ecosystem. C'mon man.

SAIL - there's tons of research out there. Most of it saying we don't know what the effects will be during long term operation. Granted, there will be significant impact to marine life, some good, some bad. That's part of the reason for having them so far off shore. The bigger issue though is that we need renewable energy, even if it affects some wildlife. Nothing kills as many animals per year as oil and gas plants. Sure, wind isn't perfect, but there's no arguing it's better and safer than coal, oil and even nuclear for the environment and wildlife.

Exactly SACJON science doesn't know! A very bold statement "Nothing kills as many animals per year as oil and gas plants. Please show the data.
Remember,, I have had solar on our house before it was cool, Drive a Prius which still isn't that cool. Took out the grass and installed drought tolerant landscape 20+ years ago

Data for SAIL:

"It estimates that wind farms are responsible for roughly 0.27 avian fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while nuclear power plants involve 0.6 fatalities per GWh and fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 9.4 fatalities per GWh" - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993?cookieSet=1

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds (citing study here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421509001074)

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/aug/17/louie-gohmert/solar-farms-kill-thousands-birds-not-many-fossil-f/

Estimates and models aren't a replacement for hard science.

Then by all means, show us the "hard science."

Myth #6 on the hit parade of the shills: Models are Unreliable

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

NOTREALLYDAVE - these turbines will be beyond your view, unlike the rigs. The lease areas for these projects are all at least 20 miles off shore along a relatively unpopulated area. On a clear day people might be able to see very tiny dots. Also, the "enviros" (yeah those whacky folks who want to breath clean air and not destroy our planet with oil) were much more concerned about the catastrophic oil spills than the view. I hope you really don't think it was about the view of some ugly rigs less than a mile off shore.....

Wind turbines look futuristic and nice to me. Maybe the oil shills should try another argument like "they're used to triangulate deep state space lasers to hack election machines."

Actually they want to stop of shoredrilling because of pollution, climate change
And all the weather extremes...maybe go to Florida where the hurricane hit, or areas that have suffered severe flooding or here is California with severe drought and fire.. we won't have an economy if we don't move to clean energy period...has nothing to do with the view. What we should do is convert oil platforms to wind and wave production, 24/7 energy... Bombora wave energy
GW energy 24/7 https://bomborawave.com/

You're confusing weather with climate and the claim of "we won't have an economy if we don't move to clean energy period" is climate alarmism and not backed by actual 'science'. Like the hurricanes you mentioned (and cyclones), according the NOAA there is no linkage between global warming and increased hurricane frequency, but you have to follow the science from actual scientist like the NOAA and not the Science™ from political scientist.

HAHA, come on, man, maybe one percent of people who want to stop offshore oil drilling are concerned about the aesthetics.

That's such a stupid thing to say.

Sac- Is this an out-of-sight, out-of-mind thing or just a massive NIMBY thing? What if this was in the channel? Two thumbs up still?

Windmills kill birds, but far less than other manmade activities. About a million birds are killed in the US by wind turbines annually. Which sounds like a lot until you see that cell and radio towers kill 6.5 million, power lines kill 25 million, windows kill 1 billion (with a B), and cats kill 1-4 billion. [[https://www.sierraclub.org/michigan/wind-turbines-and-birds-and-bats#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20up%20to%20a,loss%2C%20pollution%20and%20climate%20change%20( ]]

If the oil shills really cared about the problem of bird killings, they would be trying to ban cats and windows. But of course that's silly, and of course it's just a rhetorical game to them like middle schoolers use in debate clubs.

CHILLIN - oil and gas production kill farm more birds and wildlife than wind turbines. It's so lame to hear the pro-oil crowd pretend to be concerned about our environment, while they're OK with their source of energy killing far more.

Sac: It's so fake and lame. It's a wonder they don't burst out laughing when pretending to be concerned about animals. Their usual kitchen sink strategy of throwing every argument they can at something no matter how ridiculous or hypocritical. I remember seeing an article on psychology and human perceptions that claimed even if claims are nonsense, their presence and sheer volume creates the appearance of controversy and doubt among the uninformed. Or they do the fascist strategy of just repeating batshit nonsense until it seems normal.

Nail on the head Chip. While transitioning to green generation is important, we need to put the horses in front of the cart and improve reliable green generation prior to shutting down / ceasing reliable fossil fuel generation. Switching from coal to natural gas has been the single largest driver of CO2 reduction over the past decade. This movement of 'we need to do it now or else we're all going to die' is simply not accurate and extremely regressive as it's negative consequences are overwhelming borne by the poor and lower class.

VOICE and CHIP - granted, renewables need some perfection. BUT.... at what point would you be ok with them being used on a large scale? Zero bird/wildlife kills? Zero pollution from component construction? When will they be "perfect" enough for you? Honest question.

I'm okay with them being used on a large scale now. What I'm not okay with is the shifting away from relatively clean fossil fuels, like natural gas, before we can reliably make up that supply with reliable green generation due to the negative consequences that come with it like I explained below. There are many benefits to a cheap, plentiful, rather clean and energy dense fuel like natural gas and it should be part of our greener future. Nuclear is the way the go, but too many have an irrational and non-science based fear of it. Do you know more people die each year installing and maintaining wind turbines than have ever been killed in a nuclear power accident?

In banning new natural gas connections in our city do you think city staff our council reached out to our electrical providers to determine if we'd have the capacity to meet this increased electrical demand into the future, especially with the increased usage of EV's. It would be a rather easy calculation for engineers to make but am fairly certain they didn't get this basic question answered before making a decision. Cart before the horse.

VOICE - I agree on that. California is a bit ban-happy. As for nuclear though, the relatively low human death toll compared to wind construction accidents is a bit tricky. How many people have died during the construction (as opposed to failure) of power plants? That would be more comparable than deaths during meltdowns. How many people have died due to turbine failures compared to nuclear disasters? I bet it's less.

How are fossil energy sources in any way reliable? Oil is largely controlled by a cartel of dictatorships (OPEC) that can throttle the supply and keep prices high. If someone sneezes too hard in the Persian Gulf, speculation drives prices up. Much if not most of the US domestic refining and drilling capacity is in the Gulf of Mexico, subject to the disruptions from hurricanes during half the year. Not to mention the supply chain headaches and lag time between exploring & drilling until the gunk is actually refined and in gas tanks. Also, the "it's cold outside" argument is downright silly from a scientific perspective. Record floods in Australia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Germany, and other countries indicate more extreme and frequent weather events are already here.

One of the products of natural gas combustion is CO2. What is clean about that?

Chillin, we have enough natural gas here in the US to support all our energy needs for 100+ years. Restricting domestic production is what has driven prices up, made us more reliant on OPEC+ countries, and given those countries more power in the world. You reference to floods in those countries is weather, not climate.

There is nothing unclean about CO2. We exhale it every day, it's already in the air we breathe, its literal plant food. We are far below optimal CO2 levels for plant growth. In the past earth has had more CO2 in it's atmosphere and during that time it was a much greener place.

Sacjon, if we were serious about electrifying the world without fossil fuels modern nuclear reactors is the way to accomplish that. We simply can not do it with wind turbines, solar, and the massive battery storage facilitates it would require. The sheer volume of minerals, metals and material to do that would be absolutely staggering and very destructive to our environment, more so than the nuclear accidents we've had to date.

VOICE - right, but I don't think the plan is to rely SOLELY on wind and solar any time soon. Until that is even a feasible idea, we need to still rely on some non-green forms. The thing is, cutting back on those non-green energy sources by supplementing with wind/solar is far better than not using wind/solar at all and continuing the reliance on coal/oil, etc.

So, until we can go 100% renewable worldwide (long way from that), shouldn't we be using as much renewable energy as we can? I don't understand the vehement push back from some on even trying to cut back on pollution by using farms like this. It can't be all or nothing anymore. We have to start cleaning up our home.

Yes, please VOR enlighten us all with your amateur climate science. I'm sure your internet research is more credible than leading scholarship in this field. And restricting production hasn't made a significant impact on prices, which are shaped by global dynamics. [[https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/why-are-us-natural-gas-prices-soaring-2022-05-06/]]
Top causes are: cutoff of supplies from Russia and the resulting shift to US markets to meet European needs, lack of storage capacity, the increase of LNG making gas easier to transport and turning it into a global commodity, and above-average temperatures putting stress on supplies. Where are you getting your info from? Genuinely asking bc I'm confused about the disconnect.

I would be fine with switching to so-called “renewable” energy of it actually worked and if it lowered the cost of energy. Wind and solar are not practical replacements for fossil fuels and nuclear power. The push to go “green” is dramatically increasing the cost of energy and setting us back years on investment in oil and gas production and refining capacity. We are going to have a lot to of catching up to do on that in the years ahead, and you can be assured that we will be catching up on that. As far as the alleged benefits of “renewable” energy, I would question whether there are any. It has yet to be demonstrated that windmills and solar panels will make the air colder. What if they don’t? Or worse yet, what if it gets colder despite record CO2 emissions? I think the only “renewable” aspect of “green energy” it is the need to replace windmills, batteries, and solar panels every 10-20 years.

CHIP - Why the quotes? Do you really not believe wind and solar are renewable forms of energy?

"As far as the alleged benefits of “renewable” energy, I would question whether there are any." - Really? None? So, just continue killing wildlife and people and polluting our planet by belching coal and oil smoke into our air? Yikes. Good thing those in charge don't agree.

Kill the planet by emitting clean CO2 from gas sources in the us? Really? You think rare earths sourced from overseas are better for the environment?

Yes, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
Weak minded republican's parrot nonsensical arguments like VOR's that they saw in a far-right rag.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/12/suburban-virginia-republican-coalition/yes-carbon-dioxide-pollutant/
Fossil fuels, when burnt to produce energy, release carbon dioxide.
The CO2 produces a greenhouse effect that allows sun rays to enter the atmosphere but not leave after they bounce off the earth’s surface.
Piles of scientific studies conclude that CO2 and other greehouse gasses are causing global temperatures to rise.
The Environment Protection Agency has classified greenhouse gasses, especially from vehicle emissions, as a form of pollution.
Globally, 76% of greenhouse gas emissions are CO2.

In the U.S., 76% of greenhouse gas emissions are CO2. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 47% since the beginning of the Industrial Age and 11% since 2000, according to NASA.

The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gasses fall under the Clean Air Act’s definition of pollutants and can be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. (The high court heard oral arguments in February 2022 challenging the ruling but has yet to render a second opinion.)

In 2009, the EPA classified greenhouse gasses - especially from vehicle emissions - as a form of pollution. The gasses "are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans," the EPA said.

Sacjon, no one is saying don't use wind and solar.

Eh.... CHIP kind of is. Also, I never said that anyone did. I questioned CHIP's comment to try to understand if that's actually what he really meant.

Chillin, the NOAA is far from amateur climate science. Restricting production certainly isn't the only thing driving gas prices, never said it was, it is however one of the leading causes and exacerbates the problem whenever supply is constrained while demand is increased.

If only someone could have warned Europe about the dangers of being so reliant on Russian gas..... oh wait, someone did.... https://www.opindia.com/2022/06/germany-to-restart-coal-power-plants-to-conserve-natural-gas-german-leaders-dismissed-warnings-by-donald-trump-on-russian-energy-imports/

"In the past earth has had more CO2 in it's atmosphere and during that time it was a much greener place." - Interesting... so, are you saying more CO2 in our atmosphere is a good thing and would make our planet cleaner? How do you reconcile that with the loads and loads and loads of scientific evidence that too much CO2 in our atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect?