Think of consequences of ‘green’ initiatives
Do our government reps ever consider unintended consequences or what happens after they commit to something? Case in point, the governor plans to remove two hydroelectric dams. What is she planning to do to replace the electricity those dams created? Where will farmers get the water those dams provided? Those dams should not be removed until she has adequate answers for those questions.
It’s like those promoting electric cars. There is a large carbon impact in producing the batteries for these cars, now we need more electricity produced to fuel them and no one is working on that, and for some reason people with electric cars seem to think the rest of us should be providing them with free electric fill ups and charger stations.
Saving the environment is important but we have to look into the consequences of “green” plans before implementing. For example, the typical wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of non-recyclable plastic. Does that sound very green? And now we need batteries to store the electricity. With batteries it costs approximately $200 to store the energy equivalent to one barrel of oil — $200,000 worth of Tesla batteries, weighing collectively over 20,000 pounds, is needed to store the energy equivalent to one barrel of oil, according to Art Crino, an engineer.
What this means is we actually are creating more pollution and waste in an attempt to “save the planet,” rather than really thinking through a plan of action. Government needs to stop the knee jerk reaction to going green until they have real world, workable solutions we can all live with. An internet article showed a man creating fuel for his bike from plastic bottles. Sounds like a better thing to try than what’s being done now.