Trib Article: "What is religious and what is political?"

[Teancum]

On 8/26/2022 at 4:46 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I used to deny climate change many years ago but as I thought about it more it made sense.  Also as I read the views of what would happen in the world before the second coming (wars, famines and other natural disasters) and compared it to what people say will happen with climate change, I came to conclude that climate change plays a key role in the last days events.  Rather than fearing climate change and try to avoided the unavoidable, better to prepare to endure through it.  The scriptures and the prophets tell us what  will happen before Christ comes.  The science of climate change gives us some reasons of why it will happen.   When the Lord says in D&C 1 that he knows of the calamity that is coming to the earth, I believe that includes climate change.  The Lord knew man would burn fossil fuels, increase CO2 and that would bring world wide calamity.   I am ok with climate change.

If anything, the LDS church is a church where climate change is part of our doctrine.  We believe that one day that the earth will receive its celestial glory.  That is the mother of all climate change.

What a horrible way to approach a catastrophic issue. A fine example of how religion becomes dangerous. So because you think climate change meets your understanding of end time prophecy we should just rolo with it?  Ummm no.  End time believers have been reading stuff into all sorts of events and thinking it was part of the end that is nigh even at the door.  And they are  always wrong. You are as well.  Jesus ain't coming back any time soon if ever.

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Solar and wind energy are still early on in their development, but it ought to be obvious that, in the long term, they are more promising than hydrocarbons because they produce fewer emissions and are theoretically infinite in supply.

They could be.  We don’t really know enough yet to say, since the solar and wind industry is currently completely dependent upon the oil industry to exist and function.  But hopefully that will be something that can changed in the future.

I think the worry for a lot of people is the collateral damage that some places will suffer as things change over.

Some of that damaged, like the sad state of West Virginia as coal has run out, is inevitable. But some could be mitigated if people and governments want to mitigate it.

I think most people do want to mitigate but not all.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes.  Even your entire post.

You are probably correct.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Some say and the others said say.  Both are not inaccurate.  Do you disagree that some do say the church should be more outspoken on the topic and others say the opposite?

No.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

A couple things. Yes environmental issues are political.  But it is no surprise really that they are is it? 

I don't have qualms with environmentalism having a political dimension.  Environmental policy is an important part of government these days.

My qualms pertain to the misappropriation of both environmentalism and government to advance objectives that are not well-rooted in science, which have ulterior motives (using environmentalism as a pretext), the misanthropy that is seems baked into so many aspects of what is often characterized as "environmentalism," the hypocrisy, the graft and corruption and waste, and so on.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Another repugnant aspect of politicized "environmentalism" is the flagrant "for thee and thine, but not for me and mine" hypocrisy and virtue-signaling of so many of its prominent proponents:

Anyway, I think the Church is increasingly concerned about the environment, and I think that's a good thing.  I don't, however, equate that to the recommendation from Bowman's sockpuppets that "church leaders should make more vigorous statements about the environment because of scriptural commands to be good stewards of the earth," particularly when framed in a "what is religious and what is political" context.  

WE still live in a world where we need to travel and use the energy sources we have. I think whining about these  types of things is petty and an attempt to deflect and justify doing nothing.

First, I am not trying to justify any such thing.

Second, the hypocrisy matters.  A lot.  A lot.  It is indicative of, I think, alarmism, corruption, ulterior motives, and so on.

Third, Chesterton's fence comes to mind:

Quote

Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from Chesterton's 1929 book, The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, in the chapter, "The Drift from Domesticity":

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'^[81]

Look at the ongoing protests in the Netherlands.  Look at the mess in Sri Lanka.  These are self-inflicted problems.  And I think they are being done tyrannically, without consideration for the welfare of human beings or their society.  Yes, we need to regulate use of resources, but we also need to be able to feed ourselves.

If anthropogenic 

Fourth, we are seeing today more instances over-politicized environmentalism that sure seem to have a lot in common with the tyrannical excesses of Communism in yesteryear in China (the "Great Leap Forward"), in USSR (famines during the Stalin Era).  These were brought about by the ideology of Communism left unchecked and uncontrolled.  I am concerned that situations like what we have seen in Venezuela, Netherlands, Sri Lanka, etc. are being brought about the the ideology of environmentalism / global warming alarmism.  See, e.g., these brief comments from Vaclav Klaus in 2009:

"You can't compare communism with global warming.  You must compare communism with the ideology of environmentalism, or the ideology of global warming alarmism. ... We are talking about two ideologies, and in this respect they are structurally very similar.  They are against individual freedom, they are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates, they are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to do live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do, and so on.  There is a huge similarity in this respect.  But it is a similarity of ideologies."

Yep.  The communist/socialist "Class Struggle!" rhetoric is out.  The new rhetoric is something like "Save the Planet! (by giving government overwhelming hegemony over nearly every aspect of your property, money, behavior and lives)."

I think these are justifiable concerns.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

In the end, it looks like Bowman is advocating for something along these lines.  He is encouraging "Latter-day Saint groups {} seeking to combat climate change" to hitch their political objectives and preferences to "the powerful moral language and organizing potential the church offers."  To persuade other members of the Church to "broaden what Latter-day Saints mean by 'religion'" to include . . . support of these groups' political objectives/preferences.  So being a good Latter-day Saint becomes less about developing faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ, about repentance, baptism, keeping covenants, serving others, and so on, and instead becomes more about supporting self-appointed environmentalist groups and their political goals.

I would think what he encourages is problematic since while I think  at least in the US most church members lean conservative, and some extremely so, there are other viewpoints. 

Not sure how that makes Bowman's comments "problematic."

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure how the church walks a fine line on this really.

I think the Church is doing a pretty good job of paving its own path forward, based on the Restored Gospel and the best lights of the leaders of the Church.  

I want the Church to focus on its mandates.  I don't want it appropriated/hijacked to suit the political preferences of self-selected members of the Church (such as  "Latter-day Saint groups {} seeking to combat climate change").

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

On the other hand if say climate issues do pose an existential threat to humanity it does seem the Church that claims to be led by God with prophets that God directs ought to do more. 

As the the Spartan ephors (as quoted by Plutarch) put it: "If."

I like what this guy has to say:

And here:

But this doesn't provide enough opportunity for graft, control over other people's lives, etc.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

The pope certainly has taken a position on climate issues as well as other difficult topics.

And the Church has taken a position on environmentalism.  Meanwhile, thought, it tends to focus - as it should - on its mandates.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

think most people do want to mitigate but not all.

And some may be supportive of the idea, but may not be willing to sacrifice themselves that much to offset the needs of others.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Interesting stuff.  Hopefully there will be improvements in those areas. Diversification of energy sources just makes sense.

As for the economics of it, probably the hardest thing to reproduce would be the benefit to the state or country.  The reason that countries (or states for the US and Canada) make so much money off of the oil industry is because they often own the land that it's coming from.  That means taxes, leases, and income from the sale of the product itself.

For example, Wyoming funds its public school system off of just the taxes that it makes from oil, natural gas, and coal because it almost all comes from BLM land.  Because of this Wyoming can spend over $16,000 on each student per school year.  In comparison, Utah spends around $6500 last I checked.   

And this doesn't account for the thousands of jobs that the industry creates in that state, which almost all pay really well (over $75,000 a year well for jobs that most don't need a college degree).  I was making $18 an hour as unskilled labor as a 21 year old back in 1999.

You can tax solar and wind (and they do!) but whether or not the taxes will generate the same income is still way up in the air.  Part of the reason that oil and gas companies can pay so much (both in taxes and to their employees) is because they make so much from their product.  Solar and wind would need to be making the same level of profit to be able to produce the same economic impact, and that is doubtful. 

But not out of the realm of possibility.

That is the thing with oil, it creates haves and have nots.  Green energy could create a more equitable distribution of wealth/tax benefits between states and nations (something the haves in power don't want).  

When comparing the 2 industries, from the research I have done, I really don't see much if any benefit in the oil sector when comparing job security, pay, benefits, etc.  

Depending on the study, some show clean energy paying slightly higher, others show oil paying slightly higher, and others about the same:

Quote

“The median hourly wages for clean energy jobs overall are about 25 percent higher than the national median wage,” the study found. Compared with jobs in the coal, natural gas and petroleum industries, which pay about $24.37 an hour, jobs in solar and wind pay about $24.85 an hour, while jobs in the energy efficiency—the biggest employer in America’s energy sector—come with median salaries of about $24.44.

Prior to the onset of the pandemic, clean energy employment was one of the fastest growing job sectors in the country, accounting for more than 3.4 million workers at the end of last year.

“That’s more Americans than work as real estate agents or school teachers, and three times the amount that work in fossil fuels,” Keefe said.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimmagill/2020/10/26/oil-gas-vs-clean-energy-which-will-have-best-jobs-in-the-future/?sh=186f38115738

Quote

Oil and gas jobs are lucrative but volatile. They can create incredible opportunities, particularly for workers without college degrees, but they can disappear at the drop of a spot price.

Clean energy jobs pay better than the typical U.S. job, up to 25% more or some $2-$5 more per hour, according to recent research from Brookings and an new report commissioned by a group of clean energy organizations.

But petroleum jobs pay more like 40% over the median, according to the U.S. Energy and Employment Report — and extraction jobs on drilling sites pay nearly double the national median, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

However, clean energy jobs are also less volatile, says Julia Pollak, a labor economist at job postings site Ziprecruiter.

"You just have a straight sort of linear trend in most of those occupations over time, not the wild fluctuations that you see in oil," she says.

Jobs in energy efficiency — working to make buildings easier to cool and heat — have historically been relatively stable, too.

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/21/925504343/oil-jobs-are-big-risk-big-pay-green-energy-offers-stability-and-passion

Quote

For every million dollars the United States government invests, solar produces over 2.7 times more jobs than fossil fuels, according to an analysis from two environmental think tanks and a labor union. Wind energy spurs over 2.8 times more jobs than investments in oil, gas and coal. And retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient creates demand for nearly three times as many jobs.

The findings appear to hold true across the world.

The paper ― which the World Resources Institute, New Climate Economy, and the International Trade Union Confederation published Monday ― reviewed a dozen studies from 2009 to 2020 and compared the projected job numbers in Brazil, China, Indonesia, Germany, South Africa, South Korea, the United States and globally.

Dollar for dollar, solar energy creates a global average of 1.5 times as many jobs as investing the same money into fossil fuels. Geothermal energy generates over 1.7 times as many jobs. Building efficiency retrofits spur 2.8 times more jobs.

Green jobs with even lower capital costs, such as paying workers to rehabilitate wetlands or plant trees, made for an even starker comparison with expensive fossil fuel production, creating nearly four times as many jobs.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/green-jobs-study_n_6169d3fce4b005b245bd1192

 

 

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2021/09/21/how-much-do-energy-industry-jobs-pay-a-look-at-the-data/

With clean energy paying 25% higher than the average national wage, and with 3 times more jobs than oil, and with job growth only expected to increase.  It seems that in terms of jobs and job security, clean energy is where it is at. 

In comparing tax benefits between oil and clean energy, it all depends on how they regulate it. 

Honestly, I don't see much if economic argument to prioritize oil over clean energy.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by pogi

[Teancum]

On 8/26/2022 at 5:14 PM, carbon dioxide said:

Not saying we should not do anything but I don't worry about climate change or a lot of other things going on in the world.  Everything is progressing as it supposed to go.  Even the secularization of the world and people turning away from religion is part of what is supposed to happen.  At some point, the Lord withdraws the missionaries and begins a new sermon of a series of disasters.    I am just not stressing about climate change.  We can't turn back the clock.  CO2 emissions will continue to increase.  Even as we "decarbonize", more carbon will be released by melting permafrost which will negate most of of the efforts made.  I just approach the issue with realistic expectations.  The table is being set for the last days events.  It may not make me happy to go through these bad times but it has to happen for the Lord to come back. 

You sure about that bolded part?  I have read a few books on this subject and I am far from an expert. I do not think your observation is widely accepted. 

As for the rest of your end of the world hyperbole, well you know what I think of that.

[Teancum]

On 8/26/2022 at 5:32 PM, bluebell said:

Do you think humans have the power to keep all of the calamities spoken of that will come before second coming, from happening?

Yes.  Because there have been calamities forever and for the past 2000 years believers think these all portend the end of the world.  But here we are.  So sure there is a lot we can do to mitigate climate change and no this is not an end time thing.  If humans are still around 1000 years from now people will still be predicting some end time thing.

On 8/26/2022 at 5:32 PM, bluebell said:

Sincere question. Could we, if we chose, stop the the famines, pestilences, oceans from heaving beyond its bounds, etc that the scriptures say will happen before Christ comes again?

We can stop some things and others we cannot.  Can't stop an earthquake.  Can do a lot about famines and pestilence.  None  of these are new. 

On 8/26/2022 at 5:32 PM, bluebell said:

It’s an interesting concept.

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by Teancum

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

With clean energy paying 25% higher than the average national wage, and with 3 times more jobs than oil, and with job growth only expected to increase.  It seems that in terms of jobs and job security, clean energy is where it is at. 

The three times more jobs….can you describe what this entails, because if it is in the production side, if it takes 3 times as many people to produce similar amounts of energy, that is going to be much more expensive.  If it is in new areas that are opened up that won’t contribute to the cost of energy coming into your home or business, that is something quite different.

[Teancum]

On 8/26/2022 at 5:35 PM, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think we should assume human-made catastrophes are fulfillment of prophecy and therefore are inevitable. We are supposed to be good stewards, not fatalists. 

We should not assume any catastrophes are fulfillment of prophecy because none are.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Teancum said:

We should not assume any catastrophes are fulfillment of prophecy because none are.

I was speaking hypothetically of people who believe in such prophecies. YMMV

[Teancum]

On 8/26/2022 at 6:01 PM, bluebell said:

True, but the scriptures are full of human-made catastrophes that were a fulfillment of prophecy.

 

Such as?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Such as?

I'm thinking the destruction of the Nephites. Of course, that means you have to believe in the existence of Nephites and that they are described accurately by the only source that describes them.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

What is a first world environmental solution?  

Speaking generally (frankly this isn't an area that I feel inclined to devote a lot of time and intellectual energy to: so many good and interesting things to learn, so little time!) a First World environmental solution one that is more technologically advanced than perhaps non-First-World countries are capable of producing or of implementing easily, and one that is more feasible economically in a First World country than in a non-First World country. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The three times more jobs….can you describe what this entails, because if it is in the production side, if it takes 3 times as many people to produce similar amounts of energy, that is going to be much more expensive.  If it is in new areas that are opened up that won’t contribute to the cost of energy coming into your home or business, that is something quite different.

Here is a breakdown:

Quote

 

Each industry has a different blend of job types
Another difference between energy sectors is the proportion of people employed within various occupations. In the following comparison, the contrasts between each sector become more apparent. The chart below is complicated, so these bullet points walk through the main takeaways.

-In the petroleum industry, the largest category of employment is in extraction, and there is little work in electricity generation because most petroleum is used for transportation fuels.
-For natural gas, electricity generation edges out extraction in terms of the number of people employed, though both categories are large.
-Extraction is the largest occupation within the coal industry, and it’s important to note that coal employs far fewer people than oil and gas.
-Construction jobs dominate the solar industry, which explains why solar energy, overall, has lower wages compared to fossil fuels. Construction is a lower-paying occupation than oil and gas extraction. That said, solar construction pays more than coal mining and employs far more workers, so that’s one example where a shift toward cleaner energy can replace lower-wage jobs with higher-paying jobs. Lastly, solar construction jobs are numerous – in part because many solar installations are on smaller, residential projects that tend to be labor-intensive.
-Wind industry jobs are led by construction, with professional services and manufacturing close behind. Wind energy is the smallest employment sector in the energy industry, though it’s a reasonable bet that wind will surpass coal in the near future.
-Grid jobs employ over 800,000 people who plan, build, and maintain the nation’s electricity network; this is a massive sector and one that’s frequently overlooked. The bulk of grid jobs are in construction and utilities. A modern grid is an essential element of re-tooling energy systems to accommodate diverse sources of electricity generation, and this sector is expected to grow rapidly. The pending infrastructure bill on Capitol Hill includes a $73 billion investment into the grid.

Solar workforce: More watts per worker
The 2020 Solar Jobs Census report gives a detailed look at solar employment trends over the past 10 years. Jobs in solar energy grew sharply in the first half of the decade, then leveled off. Solar installations grew steadily until 2016, then declined for three years before setting a new high mark in 2020, despite COVID-related shutdowns and slowdowns.

In a counterintuitive turn of events, the solar workforce in 2020 was smaller than in previous years, while the installed capacity of new solar panels was the highest to date. The explanation to this seeming contradiction is that solar projects are getting larger, with a shift toward more utility-scale solar farms in addition to smaller-scale residential systems. A trend toward larger systems means the number of installed panels per worker has increased.

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2021/09/21/how-much-do-energy-industry-jobs-pay-a-look-at-the-data/

 

Quote

 

Dollar for dollar, solar energy creates a global average of 1.5 times as many jobs as investing the same money into fossil fuels. Geothermal energy generates over 1.7 times as many jobs. Building efficiency retrofits spur 2.8 times more jobs.

Green jobs with even lower capital costs, such as paying workers to rehabilitate wetlands or plant trees, made for an even starker comparison with expensive fossil fuel production, creating nearly four times as many jobs.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/green-jobs-study_n_6169d3fce4b005b245bd1192

 

It sounds like dollar for dollar green energy does create more jobs, but because there are lower capital costs compared to more expensive fossil fuel production, you get more jobs without increasing the cost, it seems.  

Looking long-term, the cost of a non-renewable energy source will only go up exponentially over time.  

Edited August 29, 2022 by pogi

[Analytics]

About 6 or 7 years ago, I was at an insurance industry conference and Al Gore spoke. He seemed downright giddy and said that in terms of having the economy move off of carbon and onto renewable clean energy sources, his side winning was inevitable. It was coming much slower than he would have wanted, but ultimate victory was inevitable.  He said at this point it's a matter economics. He said that in a few locations across the country, renewable electricity was cheaper than fossil fuel, and that solar energy was destined to become much, much cheaper. He said that ultimately it doesn't matter how much people love oil and coal--the vast majority of people will choose renewable energy because it is destined to be dramatically less expensive than the alternatives.

Here in my home state of Kansas, in 2015 the state legislature set the audacious goal that by the year 2020, we would generate 20% of our electricity in-state from renewable sources.

Kansas now generates 45% of its electricity from renewables.

And the irony here is that Kansas isn't even that friendly to renewable energy sources. For example, I want to install solar panels at my house, but according to the law, I can't install a system bigger than 15 kilowatts. Since my house is 100% electric I could use a system bigger than that, but installing as much solar as I need is against the law. 

The price of solar power has fallen by over 80% since 2010. Here's why

 

[Teancum]

On 8/26/2022 at 11:26 PM, rodheadlee said:

They are the spawn of Satan.

Who are they?

On 8/26/2022 at 11:26 PM, rodheadlee said:

 

They stop every large Public Works project with lawsuits.

Every single one?  Wow. Pretty powerful bunch.  But some things deserve to be challenged.  I am for work on climate change issues and vote accordingly.  I don't do what you describe. Am I the spawn of Satan?

On 8/26/2022 at 11:26 PM, rodheadlee said:

 

It cost us billions of dollars and nothing gets done. An example is the desalination plant in Huntington Beach. They have been trying to get permits for that for 25 years but no all the Greenies are against it now we're having seven years of drought and we have no plant in Huntington Beach. Santa Barbara has one, San Diego has one, but not Huntington Beach.

Elon Musk built star Base in Texas. Now the Greenies don't want them to launch starships from the base. Why did they let him build the base in the first place? This stuff is gone beyond ridiculous and there are many examples. Don't get me started on this subject it's one of my pet peeves.

What is a greenie?  That's what we used to call new LDS missionaries.

On 8/26/2022 at 11:26 PM, rodheadlee said:

I believe once the project has started and the permits have been given and ground has been broken you should not be able to stop it with lawsuits and red tape. That pipeline up from Canada through the Dakotas to Texas for Shale oil is another fine example. Millions of dollars were wasted, people's lives were affected when it was shut down in the middle of the project.

MMmm I think you better study up on this one a little more.

[Teancum]

On 8/27/2022 at 5:42 PM, bluebell said:

Agree.  It's horrible.  I'm really really surprised, with as environmentally conscience as Canada is, that they allowed it.

Oil is big $ and big $ talk.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is the thing with oil, it creates haves and have nots.  Green energy could create a more equitable distribution of wealth/tax benefits between states and nations (something the haves in power don't want).  

When comparing the 2 industries, from the research I have done, I really don't see much if any benefit in the oil sector when comparing job security, pay, benefits, etc.  

Depending on the study, some show clean energy paying slightly higher, others show oil paying slightly higher, and others about the same:

 

 

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2021/09/21/how-much-do-energy-industry-jobs-pay-a-look-at-the-data/

With clean energy paying 25% higher than the average national wage, and with 3 times more jobs than oil, and with job growth only expected to increase.  It seems that in terms of jobs and job security, clean energy is where it is at. 

In comparing tax benefits between oil and clean energy, it all depends on how they regulate it. 

Honestly, I don't see much if economic argument to prioritize oil over clean energy.

 

 

Some of those graphs are confusing because they use 'green energy', 'clean energy', and 'renewable energy' without defining what they mean.  A lot of time we do the same, so I'm not blaming them, but there are some big differences between the terms.  Clean energy just means energy that, when used, doesn't pollute the atmosphere.  But that doesn't mean that it's at all environmentally friendly, for example.  So electric energy that comes from coal plants (a fossil fuel) is sometimes described as "clean" even though it's not clean in the way that most people would use the term.

But, to your last statement, I guess we can hope to see!  And if true we should begin to see it in those places that have used up their fossil fuels and are in desperate need for new energy sources and new jobs.  Transitioning seems like a huge no brainer under those circumstances.  Time will tell.

But some of the stuff you linked to depends on who you ask and where the data is coming from though.  This article is interesting.  It talks about the impact of unions on wages and how oil and gas (at least in California) make way more money than "clean energy" workers.  It sounds like an easy fix except, it's not.  Usually because these clean companies are no less interested in profits than oil and gas companies are.

Quote

 

 A 2021 study from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst lays out the salary gap in stark detail: The average compensation for a clean energy worker in California is about $86,000. For a fossil fuel worker? About $130,000. 

Clean energy companies, because they’re so new, usually do not have unionized workforces — and they have a history of opposing the idea of their workers unionizing. Elon Musk, the CEO of the electric vehicle manufacturer and clean energy company Tesla, broke US labor laws with anti-union tweets in 2019. And when solar installers at Bright Power, a real estate energy and water management company, attempted to unionize that same year, the company fired them all and replaced them with subcontractors. “They’re disrupting a social contract,” Zabin said in reference to clean energy companies in general. “They don’t want to pay their workers middle-class wages because they don’t have to. They have a green, mission-driven cloak that they wear, but they’re profit-driven and they can be terrible employers.”

Unlike most European countries, where unions organize workers by sector rather than company, green energy startups are free to hire whomever they like at whatever wage they wish — which is exactly what happened in Oregon two years ago. Most of the local workers who had the skills necessary to build wind turbines already belonged to unions and expected union salaries, so a number of wind farm projects brought in non-unionized workers from outside the state to build their turbines instead, which allowed them to pay lower non-union wages.

“There’s a lot of anxiety,” said Mark Brenner, co-director of the University of Oregon’s Labor Education and Research Center. “How do we make sure that there’s a just transition for those workers who are in carbon-intensive industries?”

 

 

The article makes some good points.  And I like that it offers good solutions to some of the major problems of transitioning to renewable energy.

I really do think the main problem is that right now, clean energy doesn't exist without oil and gas.  That is a hurdle that will be hard to get over.  It's not insurmountable but I don't think there are any quick solutions either.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes.  Because there have been calamities forever and for the past 2000 years believers think these all portend the end of the world.  But here we are.  So sure there is a lot we can do to mitigate climate change and no this is not an end time thing.  If humans are still around 1000 years from now people will still be predicting some end time thing.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on it. I was more interested in the thoughts of believers though, just because it's a question that is relevant to their belief system.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Such as?

I didn't put a lot of thought in that statement when I made it so wasn't thinking of anything specific.  But it was the kind of stuff like the great flood, the destruction of sodom and gomorrah, different times where destruction happened to nephites and lamanites, when the Romans besieged and sacked jerusalem, etc.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oil is big $ and big $ talk.

It would be most green and clean energy companies biggest goal to be as big $ as oil.  I'm not saying that they don't care about the environment, only that they are in it for the profit too.  It's not like the oil industry just attracts evil people who want to see the world burn while they count their cash. 

Those same kinds of people that exist in oil exist in all energy companies.  

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So when are we going to break the fusion barrier?

Not sure. I know science is working on it.

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 

Wind and solar is not going to cut it alone.

Who is arguing that is will?

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 

 

I have had wind and solar on my home for 20 years and it always has to be augmented at least 2 hours a day by diesel.

So?

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I really don't know much about the use of solar.  I know that it takes up huge areas of land and kills off a lot of birds, but that's about it.

Solar kills birds?  News to me.

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Things that I would be interested to know is how long do the panels last? 

I have solar panels and they have a 25 year warranty.

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

Is it possible to make them without using petroleum products?  How biodegradable are they?  Where will we put trash ones when they need to be replaced?

Good questions.  I am not sure.

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

 

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

You can tax solar and wind (and they do!) but whether or not the taxes will generate the same income is still way up in the air.  Part of the reason that oil and gas companies can pay so much (both in taxes and to their employees) is because they make so much from their product.  Solar and wind would need to be making the same level of profit to be able to produce the same economic impact, and that is doubtful. 

But not out of the realm of possibility.

Time to change the paradigm.  Clean and renewable energy can be an economic boon and create new jobs, industries, taxes, opportunities.  And by the way, the oil industry is highly subsidized with tax $$.  And that has probably made sense because oil has been a key to national security. 

[Teancum]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It would be most green and clean energy companies biggest goal to be as big $ as oil.  I'm not saying that they don't care about the environment, only that they are in it for the profit too.  It's not like the oil industry just attracts evil people who want to see the world burn while they count their cash. 

Those same kinds of people that exist in oil exist in all energy companies.  

I was not implying oil companies are evil nor that a profit motive is bad. I am quite fine with the company that put my solar and geothermal heat and cooling system in making money off it. In fact I like them well enough that they are coming  back this year to put more solar panels in.