The Left's 'green' policies may actually lead to more pollution

30CAT

All-American
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
48,179
9,499
708
Williamstown, WV
"Wind and solar require strip mining for rare earth minerals in places (e.g., China, Congo) largely without environmental and labor regulations. Utility-scale wind and solar require larges spaces destroying the natural landscape. Installations permanently damage the environment – each wind turbine may involve a cement and rebar foundation of hundreds of cubic yards. Keep in mind fossil fuels are required to produce the concrete and rebar. "

Leftists are destroying America

LINK: The Left's restrictions on oil and gas production in the U.S., coupled with the promotion of "green" technologies like wind and solar, may actually lead to more pollution and worse carbon emissions globally in the long run, a U.S. Senate candidate who spent ten years working with the first certified carbon-neutral company said in an interview this week.

"On the yardstick of greenhouse gas emissions, environmental policies fail," Eli Bremer, a former Olympian and Republican candidate for Senate in Colorado, said. He argued that "green" technologies may cost more to manufacture and maintain than they offset, in terms of carbon emissions, and he argued that by refusing to produce energy in the U.S., America is effectively offshoring energy production to countries with far lower environmental standards.

Bremer created and led the Shaklee Corporation's Olympic athlete sponsorship arm Pure Performance from 2011 to 2021. Shaklee Corporation became America's first certified carbon-neutral company in 2000.

Bremer said that he advocates for transparency when it comes to "green" technologies. "Any government program that is supposedly green we should find out, from head to toe, does that policy actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions or not?"

"If you look at windmills, there’s a lot of greenhouse gas emission cost that we gloss over," the candidate noted. "We extract the raw materials from the ground, process them, assemble them, maintain them for the lifespan of the windmill, then we decommission them. Virtually every expert that I’ve talked to believes that the overall return is negative."

The true overall cost remains unknown, Bremer claimed. If elected, he aims to change that.

Besides that, the Left's environmental policies also create a perverse form of "green colonialism," the former Olympian claimed.

He recalled trips to China and Cambodia, saying he saw pollution firsthand.

"When we push our production to third-world countries, they pollute their lands," Bremer said. "We are going to third-world countries and demanding that they pillage their lands so that we can have green technologies." He mentioned "lithium mines where you have young kids put in servitude" as in the Congo.

He recalled speaking with a county commissioner in Colorado, who said U.S. workers mine the coal, then they send it to China, where it gets burned "in a much less environmentally-friendly way."

He recalled a trip to Cambodia during which he decided to take a boat ride, expecting a scenic view. Instead, "it was disgusting."

"They dump their trash in the river there, and then it goes out to the ocean," Bremer recalled. "The Left is talking about not having plastic straws, but they're pushing production in others countries that don't have a waste management system."

"The global pollution goes up when the U.S. artificially caps our production," the former Olympian argued. "We have gone so far over at this point that we're actually polluting the earth because of these policies."

"When we're one of the most efficient energy-producing countries in the world, reducing our production is nonsensical," Bremer argued. "A sound environmental policy would also address global pollution," and Republican proposals do so better than Democratic ones.

He said that the best way to address the threat of climate change is through American energy innovation. "The fastest way to get to technologies in a green economy is to allow economies like the U.S. to produce quickly and develop new technologies," he said. "We’re not going to get new technologies out of China or India or Bangladesh."

He also noted that Americans want more environmentally-friendly energy sources. "We can come up with a greener society much faster as Americans than the government can mandate it. Our economy will naturally do that faster and more efficiently."

"Republicans should be willing to talk about it and say, ‘Our solutions put Americans back to work. Our solutions, globally, produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.'"

Bremer also noted that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has proven the importance of energy independence.

"Ukraine has shown that we as Americans were unwilling to face the reality that nation state conflicts were going to matter and that it is incumbent on a country to take care of your own people and to have all of the resources that you’re capable of producing inside your own borders, including energy, food, medicine, and semiconductors," he said, emphasizing that the semiconductor issue ties the U.S. to Taiwan.

"Nation-state war is coming, it’s real, and we’d better prepare for it, militarily and economically," he warned. "Anything that’s crucial to your economy, you need to be sure that you have." He also noted that the COVID-19 pandemic "should have shown us that having PPE in a foreign country is a bad policy and energy policy is the exact same."

Experts backed up some of Bremer's claims.

"Any discussion of energy sources and environmental/climate footprints needs to start from the indisputable point that the US is around 10% of global emissions and declining as a percentage of global emissions," Steve Milloy, a former Trump-Pence EPA transition member and founder of JunkScience.com, told Fox News Digital. "The point being that the US could go dark today and remain so forever and 90+% of emissions would still occur."

"Wind and solar require strip mining for rare earth minerals in places (e.g., China, Congo) largely without environmental and labor regulations," Milloy added. "Utility-scale wind and solar require larges spaces destroying the natural landscape. Installations permanently damage the environment – each wind turbine may involve a cement and rebar foundation of hundreds of cubic yards. Keep in mind fossil fuels are required to produce the concrete and rebar."

Milloy argued that "notions of ‘green’ and ‘clean’ energy are wrong-headed" because "wind and solar are always more expensive and less reliable without providing any obvious compensating upside or benefits. They also have environmental impacts, some obvious (they are eyesores), and some not so (dirty production processes occurring out of sight in foreign countries and needed underground foundations)."

Katie Tubb, senior policy analyst for energy and environmental issues at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital that "there is no perfect energy solution out there right now – they all involve tradeoffs, pros, and cons."

For this reason, Tubb argued, "it's counterproductive for policymakers to get in between energy producers and energy consumers by inserting their own political mandates and subsidies. Energy policy should allow all energy resources and technologies to compete on their own merits."

She referenced the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which projects "no scenario in which global demand for oil and natural gas do not increase through at least 2050." Since the demand for these resources is "not going away," Tubb argued that "if the US curtails its own production then it will likely find itself in a similar situation as Europe today."

Tubb also agreed with Bremer that wind and solar technologies "consume a lot more land to produce the same amount of energy, are not ‘energy dense,’ are dependent on weather, have shorter operating lifespans, require a lot of infrastructure to connect them to customers, and must be properly disposed of. They require heavy industry (which requires fossil fuels) and critical minerals to be manufactured, which must be mined – unfortunately, the Team Pedo has hamstrung domestic mining in a variety of regulations and land management decisions."

Neither the League of Conservation Voters nor the Sierra Club responded to Fox News Digital's requests for comment on Bremer's claims.
 

roadtrasheer

All-Conference
Gold Member
Sep 10, 2016
9,651
5,668
578
Parkersburg
Green new deal is authoritarian. It's the only way they can sell it .
I will believe a politician truly believes in green policy when he states we can only trade with countries that abide by our EPA regulations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT

30CAT

All-American
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
48,179
9,499
708
Williamstown, WV
Green new deal is authoritarian. It's the only way they can sell it .
I will believe a politician truly believes in green policy when he states we can only trade with countries that abide by our EPA regulations.

And....We are still stripping the Earth PLUS using fossil fuels to "be green"....We aren't reducing anything but our freedoms, the money in our wallets and jobs in our country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roadtrasheer

roadtrasheer

All-Conference
Gold Member
Sep 10, 2016
9,651
5,668
578
Parkersburg
And....We are still stripping the Earth PLUS using fossil fuels to "be green"....We aren't reducing anything but our freedoms, the money in our wallets and jobs in our country.
What gets me is the people who dont see this . It's as if they live in a tunnel or something. They fall for the words & pay no attention to the actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT

Gold-n-Blue

All-American
Gold Member
Apr 30, 2002
13,167
1,519
508
I think the future of energy lies within next generation Nuclear (like Thorium) and possibly Solar Power stations in space that can beam down energy with 24/7 sun access.
 

Hillbilly Tea

All-Conference
Gold Member
Feb 6, 2014
4,036
6,499
588
That's because the green agenda is actually a political agenda. Global elites will be the ones that benefit when we have shortages and rationing. Sadly, the sheeple believe this climate change nonsense and are led around with their nose rings being told who and how to vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roadtrasheer

Gold-n-Blue

All-American
Gold Member
Apr 30, 2002
13,167
1,519
508
That's because the green agenda is actually a political agenda. Global elites will be the ones that benefit when we have shortages and rationing. Sadly, the sheeple believe this climate change nonsense and are led around with their nose rings being told who and how to vote.
I believe in climate change myself, not a sheep. It may be overplayed at times, sure, and short sighted alternatives are often used as a liberal ivory tower to look down on others. I think some of the things Toyota is exploring make a lot of sense, hydrogen powered internal combustion engines, etc...

Maybe you are a sheep believing in the fossil fuel propaganda that climate change isn't real? That agenda certainly has an obvious $$ link.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 2, 2008
43,567
33,940
648
I believe in climate change myself, not a sheep. It may be overplayed at times, sure, and short sighted alternatives are often used as a liberal ivory tower to look down on others. I think some of the things Toyota is exploring make a lot of sense, hydrogen powered internal combustion engines, etc...

Maybe you are a sheep believing in the fossil fuel propaganda that climate change isn't real? That agenda certainly has an obvious $$ link.
Climate change being real, a need to do something, and opposition to outlawing fossil fuels while advocating for smart transitions can all co-exist. The left continuously makes this, and really any controversial topic a binary choice. Once you destroy that, their extreme narrative becomes an obvious grift.
 

Gold-n-Blue

All-American
Gold Member
Apr 30, 2002
13,167
1,519
508
Climate change being real, a need to do something, and opposition to outlawing fossil fuels while advocating for smart transitions can all co-exist. The left continuously makes this, and really any controversial topic a binary choice. Once you destroy that, their extreme narrative becomes an obvious grift.
Well said.
 

dave

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
160,420
38,093
718
Morgantown, WV
I believe in climate change myself, not a sheep. It may be overplayed at times, sure, and short sighted alternatives are often used as a liberal ivory tower to look down on others. I think some of the things Toyota is exploring make a lot of sense, hydrogen powered internal combustion engines, etc...

Maybe you are a sheep believing in the fossil fuel propaganda that climate change isn't real? That agenda certainly has an obvious $$ link.
I think the climate change agenda is nonsense. Once you realize the two extremes are the oil and gas on one side and the green on the other and both working to maximize profit using business and political narratives to achieve a goal it is pretty easy to see through the propaganda and realize we can do better by using common sense.
 

Hillbilly Tea

All-Conference
Gold Member
Feb 6, 2014
4,036
6,499
588
I believe in climate change myself, not a sheep. It may be overplayed at times, sure, and short sighted alternatives are often used as a liberal ivory tower to look down on others. I think some of the things Toyota is exploring make a lot of sense, hydrogen powered internal combustion engines, etc...

Maybe you are a sheep believing in the fossil fuel propaganda that climate change isn't real? That agenda certainly has an obvious $$ link.
Keep believing. Al Gore appreciates it.
 

Gold-n-Blue

All-American
Gold Member
Apr 30, 2002
13,167
1,519
508
Keep believing. Al Gore appreciates it.
Come on man. It is a little more than just 1 man's agenda. This is a problem, you do understand the basics of how oxygen/carbon dioxide work, and how deforestation and the balance there, right?

Hell, my stance about climate change would have been considered a right leaning stance 10 years ago. But the extremism has my same stance as middle/left.
 

Latest posts