Real Threats to Biodiversity and Humanity – Emerging With That?

Healthy ecosystems and life on Earth suggest ending wind, solar, biofuels and organic programs

Paul Driessen

Climate change references almost guarantee funding, even for research topics of little interest outside of academia and eco-activists. Polls show that most people are most worried about food and energy prices, crime, living standards, Putin’s Ukraine war and growing efforts to take control of their lives.

A recent study of Rutgers University, scientists sought to determine the level of diversity required among bee species to sustain wild plant populations. They conclude that ecosystems rely on many species of bees to thrive – and that “biodiversity is key to sustaining life on Earth”, especially with many species “rapidly becoming extinct”. climate change and human development”.

U.S. Geological Survey wildlife biologist Sam Droege says wild bees are generally “doing well.” However, they certainly face challenges, mainly because loss of habitatillness, and competition from managed honey bees and bumblebees – not pesticides, as most wild bees do not pollinate plants.

That brings us to one of Wokedom’s favorite topics: intersectionality – in this case, the real link between bees, climate change, habitat loss, and threats to our energy, living standards, and freedoms.

Simply put, the most serious threat to wildlife habitat and biodiversity (and to human rights, needs and living standards) is not climate change. It is the policies and programs that are created, implemented, and enforced in the name of preventing climate change.

Let’s take a look at habitat and biodiversity threats – without questioning whether any current or future climate change will still be largely natural, or present. now fueled by fossil fuels. Let us consider only purported solutions to what is alleged.”climate crisis“It could affect the planet and the creatures we love. Reality:

The most intensive land use – and therefore the greatest habitat destruction – comes from the programs most loved, advocated and demanded by green lovers: wind power, solar energy, biofuels and batteries, and organic farming.

The Biden team still intends to receive 100% hydrocarbon free electricity in 2035. It wants remove fossil fuels in the entire US economy by 2050: no coal or natural gas for power generation; no gasoline or diesel for vehicles; no natural gas for production, heating, cooking or other needs.

U.S. electricity demand will skyrocket from 2.7 billion megawatt-hours per year (the fossil fuel share of total U.S. electricity) to almost 7.5 billion MWh by 2050. Significant additional generation is required to continuously recharge the power bank during windless, sunless periods. The need for corn ethanol will disappear, but biofuel crops will have to replace petrochemical feed supplies for paints, plastics, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, cell phones, wind turbine blades and countless other products.

This is for the US only. Extrapolate these needs to the rest of a developed world that uses no fossil fuels… to China and India… and to poor countries determined to take their rightful place among the people. healthy and prosperous on Earth – and the claims for “clean, green” energy become monumental, incomprehensible.

We are definitely looking at tens of thousands offshore wind turbine, millions of onshore turbines, billions of photovoltaic solar panels, billions of vehicle modules and backup batteries, and tens of thousands of miles of new transmission lines. Hundreds of millions of acres of US farmland, scenic areas and wildlife habitats will be impacted – blanket with huge industrial facilities, biofuel operations and power lines.

Add a lot and unprecedented miningprocessing and manufacturing are required to make all of these energy inefficient technologies—most of them outside the United States—and land use, habitat loss, and toxic pollution pose serious threats to the environment. importance to people, wildlife and the planet.

Let’s take a closer look, now only from the US point of view, but know this is Global concerns.

Solar. The 72,000 high-tech sun-tracking solar panels at Nevada’s sunny Nellis Air Force Base cover 140 acres but generate only 32,000 MWh per year. That’s 33% of rated power; 0.0004% of the 2050 US electricity needs. Low-tech stationary panels have much lower efficiency and generating capacity, especially in more northern latitudes. Meeting the US’s 2050 electricity needs will require sunshine in Nevada and almost 235,000 Nellis systems over 33,000,000 acres (equivalent to Alabama).

Triple that area for low-tech fixed panels in less sunny areas. For reference, Dominion Energy alone is planning 490 square miles of tables (8 times that of Washington, DC) in Virginia only, for Virginia only. Then add all the transmissions.

Wind energy. The 355 turbines at Indiana’s Fowler Ridge industrial wind facility cover 50,000 acres (120 acres/turbine) and generate electricity just over 25% of the time. Even at just 50 acres per turbine, meeting the US’s 2050 electricity needs would require 2 million 1.8 MW wind turbines, over 99,000,000 acres (equivalent to California), if they generate electricity. 25% during the year.

But the more turbines (or solar panels) we need, the more we have to place them in suboptimal areas where they can operate 15% of the year. The more installed, the more they reduce the air flow for the others. And some of the US’s best windfalls lie along the Canada-Texas flight path for migratory birds – which means unsustainable, mass slaughter of cranes, raptors, species other birds and bats.

Set sail, and even President Biden’s call for 30,000 MW of electricity (2,500 monstrous 12 MW turbines) failed to respond. New York Peak electricity demand in summer.

Biofuels and wood pellets. The US has grown corn on an acreage larger than Iowa, to meet its current ethanol quota. Fossil fuel conservation lobbyists need to calculate how many acres of soybeans, canola and other biofuel crops are needed to replace today’s petrochemical feed supplies; how much water, fertilizer, labor and fuel is needed to harvest and process them; and how much acreage would have to be taken from food production or converted from bee and wildlife habitat.

Climate activists also approve the cutting down of thousands of acres of hardwood forests in North America – almost 300,000,000 trees per year – and turn them into wood pellets, which are transported by trucks and freighters to the UK’s Drax Power Station. There, they are burned to generate electricity, so the UK can “meet its renewable fuel targets”. And that’s just a “carbon-free” power plant. It’s a year for farming and burning fuel, and fifty years for replanting replacement trees. This is not sustainable, green energy.

Organic farming. Environmentalists dream of converting all US (and even global) agriculture to 100% organic. However, that would significantly reduce wildlife habitat – especially if we simultaneously eradicate world hunger… and replace petrochemicals organically.

Organic farm required add up to 30% of the land area to achieve the same output as conventional agriculture, and most of the land needed to make that happen are forests, wildflower fields, and grasslands. Organic farmers (and consumers) also reject synthetic fertilizers, which means more land will have to be devoted to raising livestock for their manure, unless human waste is used. More wildlife habitat is lost.

They reject modern chemical pesticides that prevent billions of tons of food from being eaten or destroyed, but use toxic copper, sulfur and nicotine-based insecticide. They even rejected biotechnology (genetic engineering) to create crops that are resistant to blight, require less water, allow no-till farming, require less pesticides and yield yields much higher per acre. Translation: even less wildlife habitat

Of course there are alternatives. Government and custodian duties may require that the “average” American family live in The apartment is 640 square meters, cut energy use, ride only bicycles or public transport, and fly only every few years. They can also switch us to a “no obesity” diet.

Indeed, “scientists” are saying that we “common people” can “reduce our carbon footprint” by eating less beef and chicken, and lots of insect protein, bugs on the ground – or wasps. Or we can reduce the number of “cancer, parasites“Human. (Perhaps to start with wanting to be a supervisor?)

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power-Black Death and numerous environmental articles.

Source link


News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button