ChipSeal

Good job! I asked for you to name three species that went extinct in 2007 and you give me none! At a purported rate of 54,750 extinctions last year, is it asking too much to name three of them? I wish mosquitoes were among them!

Worse, you quote a politician spouting the projections of computer modeling from Greenpeace!

Please, would you accept a similar response from me if you asked me for evidence, and all I do is quote a politician?

Elkhound

I can think of two right off: the Yangtzee Soft Shelled Turtle and the Chinese Fresh Water Dolphin.

jakbikesdc

You said Species which went extinct in 07. I know there may be grief that it is only a plant species, but remember that human and animal life both depend on plant life. Plant life, consequently depends on animal or human death.

Found these two: the woolly-stalked begonia, and Yangtze river dolphin ( maybe the same^). Not to mention the western lowland gorilla moved from endangered, joining the Sumatran orangutan in the critically endangered category. You can find Orangutans at the zoo, but I'm sure they don't enjoy it as much as you do.

roseskunk

ouch, chipseal, a politician spouting the half-truths of greenpeace and earth first! of course, that's usually the first place politicians look for facts.
okay, how about the world conservation union?

https://www.iucnredlist.org/

Gland, Switzerland, 12 September, 2007, World Conservation Union (IUCN) – Life on Earth is disappearing fast and will continue to do so unless urgent action is taken, according to the 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

There are now 41,415 species on the IUCN Red List and 16,306 of them are threatened with extinction, up from 16,118 last year. The total number of extinct species has reached 785 and a further 65 are only found in captivity or in cultivation.

One in four mammals, one in eight birds, one third of all amphibians and 70% of the world’s assessed plants on the 2007 IUCN Red List are in jeopardy.

ChipSeal

So are you now putting distance between yourself and the fella you quoted as saying:
"Up to 150 species are becoming extinct every day." (Um, that would be 54,750 extinctions a year.) That is a wee bit of an exaggeration from a total of 785, wouldn't you say? Do you feel kinda gullible for swallowing the 150 a day figure with so little skepticism? After all, that is more species than are even on the "red list"! Did you know that exaggeration and out right lies are commonly spouted by leaders of the green movement?

Would you now admit that the quoted politician is hysterical in his claim?

Is not extinction the rule, rather than the exception, historically? And pray tell, what is the "urgent action" proposed? Not the same tired old fix demanded for every environmental "crisis" that has been trotted out during my lifetime, to dismantle western civilization? It makes one wonder if it is not an agenda looking for a problem.

roseskunk

Ya’ know, you’re right chipseal. A cursory look at figures on the internet regarding extinctions can be confusing. 150 a day versus 41,000 is a big difference.
Can you imagine the problem in proving that an animal is extinct? I mean you can pretty easily prove that an animal isn’t extinct, “look, there’s one now!” But proving that one doesn’t exist? And I’m sorry that I didn’t do my homework for you when I started looking at this issue. Frankly I’m surprised that anyone with any sense at all can’t see the problems that we face in regards the planet and extinctions. 41,000 animals on the World Conservations Red List of endangered species?! More than 16,000 threatened with extinction? And yeah, I know, just who are these people, the IUCN? Just another bunch of crazy Earth Firsters? Uh, no, chipseal, not Earth Firsters. “The Union brings together 83 States, 110 government agencies, more than 800 non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and some 10,000 scientists and experts from 181 countries in a unique worldwide partnership.”

Not good enough? How about those tree hugging liberals, the Union of Concerned Scientists? According to them, species extinction range from 100 to 10,000 species per year. And no, chipseal, extinction is not the rule rather than the exception. The long-term extinction rate prior to human influence is 1 to 10 extinctions per decade per million species. We’re talking 100 to 1000 times faster… wow, that’s fast.

The point here chip, is that the people saying that we’re in a world of hurt as regards extinctions and global change aren’t just “hysterical claims of the Earth First crowd”, they’re people a lot smarter, a lot more diverse, with a lot more information than you or I. Frankly I hope they’re wrong and you’re right. But somehow I doubt it. BTW, where do you get your insight on these issues?

ChipSeal

I am sure that it is merely coincidental that most of these agencies have a vested interest in growing the power and influence of government. As such, it is in their interest to make claims that will induce panic so that their power over others be increased. After all, isn't their proposed solution that of making ever more decisions for you?

If the total extinction cited by the IUCN is 785, am I to suppose that species have only been dying off for the past eight years- assuming the lower 100 species a year estimate of the Union of Concerned Science is the accurate figure? Clearly someone here is way off the mark. Perhaps the fact that the UofCS is the forth largest recipient GW study grants (As much as 30% of it's research) produces an inducement to lean to the hysterical side? Keep that grant money coming! https://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf

As you can see from the above analysis, it is mostly a big dose of skepticism and a little common sense. None of this hysterical crisis mode, the panicky "We gotta DO something" methodology is new. It is the pattern of liberal environmentalism for the past 40 years.

It is always over some new danger, that invariably is found to be a hoax. (Their failures of the past are overlooked as the new crisis is trumpeted.) Always, *that is, every time!* the remedy proposed is a loss of freedom for the individual and more power for the government.

It is rather tiresome, really. It is surprising that it keeps working. Youth are more susceptible to it because they lack perspective, and seem to have no memory of events during their lifetime even.

Media of course has a lot to do with it. Crisis is sexy and compelling and "sells newspapers". They are nowhere to be found when the hoax is revealed. There is never a "Ollie, Ollie Oxen free!" or "never mind!" moment... they are all running off to report the latest crisis instead.

So to answer you directly, where do I get my insight? I first ask probing questions. Exaggerations and out-sized claims indicate that the plain truth is not enough for their purpose. (Their aim is something other than they have stated. Either their stated purpose is worthy on it's face, or they are using it to further some other agenda. Why else would they need to lie about it?)

How many species died last year? There IS a finite number to that, whether it can be known or not. The ICUN say 785 species have gone extinct. What year? If they have the total, where is the list? But no one will show it to us because it will demonstrate the hysterical claims as the lie they are. They fear that the bald truth will show there is no crisis, no compelling reason to hand over our liberty to a bigger government.

In the 1970's, I fell for these lies three or four times. I began to be more careful, so as not to be made the fool again. Perhaps, a few years from now when you realize you have been buffaloed by someone's lies to further their agenda, you too will resolve not to be taken in so easily next time.

ChipSeal

Having more time on my hands then I know what to do with, I wandered over to the IUCN to peruse the Red Book. Frustrated that they don't list the 785 extinct species by date of death, I randomly picked a few to look at. Of the four I read about, it was the third one, a mollusk that was suspected in 1996 as extinct, and confirmed in 2001 by actual survey.

The second and fourth I read about died out about 100 years ago and 300 years ago, respectively:

Alarmingly, the very first of the 785 that I sampled never existed at all, and yet is included in the list! This is what they have to say about the Arabian Gazelle:

I am ever more confident that claims of "mass extinction" are at best gross exaggeration, if not wholesale fabrications!

The Independent published a "report" in July 2006 that made this absurd claim: "Many plants have yet to be formally described, classified and named - and some are being lost before they have been discovered by scientists." Really!
https://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0720-08.htm

And if you read that story, you will see that there is nothing beyond the implication of doom. "More than a decade ago, Edward O Wilson, the Harvard naturalist, first estimated that about 30,000 species were going extinct each year - an extinction rate of about three an hour. Further research has confirmed that just about every group of animals and plants - from mosses and ferns to palm trees, frogs, and monkeys - is experiencing an unprecedented loss of diversity." To quote just one unsubstantiated claim. If this is true, why is it not reflected in the IUCN Red Book list? Someone is pulling a fast one here, wouldn't you think?

Why do you think there is such a difference between the claims in the press (Thousands of extinctions) and the IUCN Red Book?

Roody

You're absolutely right. The damage that would be done to 30,000 square miles of habitat is the biggest drawback to the plan. However, another consideration is the damage being done to habitats with our current methods of power generation. Coal, nuclear, natural gas and even hydro power are all destructive. How do we measure and determine the best course? At least we need to ask the question and struggle to come up with the answers. One possibility is requiring users to pay for externalities like damage to humans, animals, plants and habitats. That would make the economics more sensible, IMO.

Elkhound

I've been to the southwestern US; I've seen it; I've driven from El Paso to Phoenix. 'Barren useless desert' is based on my personal observation.

noisebeam

Driving thru on a freeway... What a great way to experience and learn about a place.

Al

noisebeam

Of course there are pro/cons for all options. What I was pointing out, or concerned about, is the tendency describe a place one doesn't know as barren useless wasteland and the considering that as a pro (or really a non-con) for damaging it.

Al

Elkhound

The land in question is not suitable for farming. It is not suitable for grazing cattle. The Native Americans living there exist in great penury and squalor. Building wind and solar farms there would not only put the land to productive use, but also provide a revenue-stream to the tribal governments that could pay for education, housing, health care, and a variety of other programs for the benefit of the people.

Will there be environmental consequences? No doubt. But compared to nuclear, coal, or hydroelectric, they will be minimal.

mtnroads

There are a lot of really great ideas and comments being shared here and you make some really good points, CE. I would point out however, that there is a significant difference between installing solar in a large scale application and a combination of individual roofs comprising similar area. Such as:

1. Individual roofs are rarely oriented optimally to the sun;
2. They often are affected by shading which PV is sensitive to;
3. You have to penetrate the roof and it can be a problem;
4. Each roof has a bunch of wiring, breakers, a new box, and an inverter - all mostly redundant in a scaled application;
5. Labor costs to install on individual roofs are proportionally much higher. The industry is trying to make it simpler but each roof has a different set of issues.

For all of these reasons, a more centralized, large-scale approach has significant advantages. Not to say a combination of approaches won't work, but I think this plan in particular needs the scale to really be effective.

Elkhound

The combination approach would be best. There should be incentives for people whose roofs (I always want to write the plural as 'rooves', but I know that isn't right) are suitable to install solar panels, particularly commercial buildings.

Generating windmills should be erected wherever feasable, as should solar farms. Particular emphasis should be placed on sites in Indian Country, to give the Tribes an income stream.

There is a great deal of energy in the tides; there have been experiments in capturing this energy, but the technology needs to be refined to the point where it is viable and deployed wherever possible.

Stockyards, livestock farms, and other places with large concentrations of animals (and the waste that goes along with them) should be encouraged to install methane extractors to process the manure. The gas could be burned on site to generate electricity to be used to power the farm, with any excess going onto the grid to the local electrical co-op.

Geothermal's potential has hardly been scratched. (Between winds, tides, and geothermal, Hawai'i could come very close to being energy independent.)

Roody

There are already billions of cubic feet of natural gas in storage in US caverns. (See the EIA for more info.) I think you're talking about proposals for storing CO2 that's been "captured" from power plant smokestacks in caverns. AFAIK, this has not yet been done on a commercial scale. Carbon capture and storage is a rival plan to the Scientific American solar plan, and also looks promising for quick implementation.

Both plans should be analysed for the next couple years, and then a plan should be selected and implemented rapidly, IMO. There is no point in dilly-dallying around about this. They're trying to build 150 new coal generating plants in the US alone right now, and of course the developing world needs power in a hurry, and they have no alternatives to coal at this point. Even if global warming turns out to be a false alarm (extremely unlikely, according to the consensus view of scientists), reliance on foreign energy is a big problem for US economy and security.

BTW, there have been other proposals for daily storage of solar power on a large scale. One Idea is to use hydraulics. Basically, water is pumped from a lower reservoir to an upper one in the daytime. At night, the flow is reversed and the water powers turbines for nighttime generation of energy.

It really amazes me that the American passion for big bold plans seems to be dormant just when we need it the most. We did the Panama Canal, transcontinental railway, atomic bomb, transatlantic cable, continental grids for telegraph and electircal power, interstate highways and other projects that were actually more expensive and seemed more "impossible" than this plan to harness solar power in the next 50 years.

Elkhound

I've also heard it suggested that excess solar-generated electricity be used to extract hydrogen from water, the hydrogen then to be used as fuel.

Roody

That also sounds plausible. There are several alternatives, and the time has come to pick one. If we wait around for the "perfect" solution, we will be waiting forever. Let's just pick one from the "good enough" solutions and go with it!

The longer we wait, the longer these high energy prices will be a drag on our economy. Already, oil producing countries are buying our banks and financial institutions, because oil producers are the only ones who have the cash (liquidity) we need to keep the economy going. This is not good, from either an economic or security viewpoint. Factor in global warming, and you have another reason for fast action on a large scale.