CalMatters
Joey Racano used to have a dining room table. Now the sunlit nook off the family kitchen more often than not serves as a conference room. The table is covered with maps, thick binders bulging with tech reports, towers of meeting minutes, abandoned coffee mugs — the accumulation of years of community vigilance.
On this day, his home is a lively place where a handful of locals are discussing one of California’s most complex and audacious initiatives — loading the Pacific Ocean with sprawling wind farms that float 20 miles from shore.
To some, it’s an exciting endeavor that will power California’s carbon-free electricity grid of the future. To others, including the people around the table, the construction of untried technology off the coast carries too many risks and unknowns.
“This is just another attempt to industrialize the coast,” said Rachel Wilson, who lives in Cayucos, a tiny, old-fashioned beach town, and regularly attends public meetings about the wind projects. “I can just see Port Hueneme with cranes and lights and a huge wharf in my charming little coastal community. No way.”
Last December, the federal government offered its first-ever wind energy leases off the California coast, concluding with five companies leasing deep ocean waters off the Central Coast and Humboldt/Del Norte counties. Included are 376 square miles that will hold three massive floating wind farms off Morro Bay, each with perhaps 50 or more turbines that will tower about 900 feet above the surface of the ocean. In addition, a developer has proposed a much smaller demonstration project of four turbines in state waters 2.8 miles off Santa Barbara County.
Local officials in Humboldt are hopeful that wind farms will boost their economy, although they are wary of the impacts and the accelerated pace. But the mood is different along the Central Coast: In Morro Bay and neighboring areas, some people are trying to stop the projects — or at least slow them down — until more can be understood about how the offshore wind industry might alter a place they cherish.
“I can just see Port Hueneme with cranes and lights and a huge wharf in my charming little coastal community. No way.”
Rachel Wilson, Cayucos resident
The coastal economy here is largely dependent on lonely beaches and bluffs where vacationers flock to swim in quiet coves, look for migrating humpback whales and watch piles of corpulent elephant seals wrestle or snore. Main streets have remained as visitors remember them from their childhoods.
The region has a history of environmental awakening, and its residents have the energy to write letters, attend public meetings and challenge development they view as incompatible with the Central Coast vibe.
If the group of neighbors gathered around Racano’s table in Los Osos is any indication, the area is not in a mood to embrace the change.
But ready or not, change is coming. From Monterey to Morro Bay and beyond, the Central Coast in the next decade will become a vital link in the state’s shift to 100% carbon-free energy.
First of its kind, the floating wind technology carries a host of unknowns, including how the projects will affect marine life, especially whales. The projects off Morro Bay will bring with them onshore development, but exactly how it will all come together is still to be determined. Building and operating them and bringing the power to shore will require a new, expanded port somewhere along the coast, as well as offshore and onshore local substations and transmission lines.
The waters off the Central Coast are among the Pacific Ocean’s most biologically rich and diverse, where warm water from the south collides with cooler water from the north, a mashup that biologists say creates one of the rarest and most distinct marine areas in the world.
Accessible from the teeming bustle of Southern California and the searing heat of the Central Valley, this quiet coast draws throngs of tourists year-round: San Luis Obispo County alone hosted 7.5 million visitors last year.
Residents say they won’t abide drastic changes any more than they would accept altering their beloved Morro Rock, a volcanic plug more than 21 million years old that squats like a totem in the bay.
At the residents’ meeting, ideas ping-pong around the table, voices rising and overlapping. How are boats going to move in and out of Morro Bay’s harbor? What will happen to the biologically-valuable Estero Bay? What about whales, fish and birds? How might our hometowns be transformed?
Photos by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local
Citing the need for clean energy and the potential to create nearly 12,000 specialized construction jobs over five years, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors voted in June to support offshore wind development off its coast. The board also called for state and federal funds to review the potential of building a clean-energy port in the county and study the wind farm’s impacts on the region’s valuable commercial fisheries.
The multinational energy company Equinor, which holds one of the three wind leases off Morro Bay, says it wants to be “good partners” with residents and help foster an economic revival.
“When we come into a new location it’s really important for us to come in and be respectful of the community where we will live and operate,” said Molly Morris, Equinor’s president of U.S. offshore wind operations. “It’s important that we continue to hear from the people we potentially impact.”
During Equinor’s community meetings about its East Coast offshore wind projects, Morris said residents expressed the same concerns about viewsheds, property values and community disruption. “There’s NIMBYism, there’s a lot of ‘I don’t want to see this from my beach.’ I totally understand that,” she said.
California Energy Commission Chairman David Hochschild said many residents’ fears do not align with the facts.
“There is not a single area on the coastline where offshore wind is going to be closer than 20 miles, in some cases 60 miles,” he said, referring to the five leases in federal waters off Morro Bay and the Humboldt coast. “In terms of view impact, there will be lights at night but you won’t see them. Many communities are excited about this. They see this as an opportunity.”
But can large-scale renewable energy coexist with a lightly-developed coastline? At this point, less than a year since the lease sales were finalized, state and federal officials are in the uncomfortable position of telling the public that they simply don’t know.
“There is not a single area on the coastline where offshore wind is going to be closer than 20 miles, in some cases 60 miles. In terms of view impact, there will be lights at night but you won’t see them.”
david hochschild, California Energy Commission
All projects must first pass muster with California’s array of regulators, who wield the sharpest of weapons — the state’s environmental quality law.
“It’s not a secret — there are a unique set of regulations that have been important to California and will continue to be,” said Tyler Studds, CEO of Golden State Wind, which holds an 80,000-acre lease off the Central Coast. “We went into this with our eyes open, we were prepared for it.”
Many Morro Bay area residents have vague but firmly-held notions about the potential impacts, even though the spinning blades — as big as one-and-a-half football fields — will be too far offshore to be seen from anyone’s kitchen window.
They also fear the intrusion, a disturbance akin to living with a neighbor undergoing a long and loud renovation project.
According to the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, offshore wind turbines are expected to have a service life of about 20 years and the blades require repair every two to five years. The floating platforms, buffeted by wave action, will need to be shut down, disconnected and towed to shore every 10 years for extensive repairs.
“This will create a drastic change to the community. I don’t trust anyone from Sacramento with what they are telling us, which is very little.”
Robert Sidenberg, Arroyo Grande resident
The project work begins with up to five years of site surveys and planning, with boats ferrying workers and equipment out to sea for extensive studies of fish, birds and the geology of the sea floor. A conservative federal estimate of the number of survey boat round trips from Morro Bay, for example, is more than 450 over 873 days.
“This will create a drastic change to the community,” said Robert Sidenberg of Arroyo Grande, who said he is working with others on a ballot initiative in San Luis Obispo County to stop offshore wind. “I don’t trust anyone from Sacramento with what they are telling us, which is very little. People had this sprung on them. These wind farms are ridiculous, the whole thing is absurd.”
Conservation groups generally support offshore wind but voice concerns about the pace of development and the many unknowns.
“Offshore wind represents a massive industrialization of the ocean,” said Laura Walsh, California policy manager for Surfrider, an environmental group focused on protecting the sea and shore. “The speed at which this is going should perk our ears. We need to make sure we are doing this properly. We are doing all this for climate goals, but the ocean is the largest carbon sequesterer we have. When you industrialize it, you jeopardize its ecosystem. You don’t get it back.”
A decades-long history of environmental activism
Marc McGinnes was a young corporate lawyer in San Francisco in 1969 when his mentor, U.S. Rep. Pete McCloskey, called him with an urgent summons: Get down to Santa Barbara, there’s been a blowout at an offshore oil well.
Over a week and a half, more than 100,000 barrels of crude oil spewed from Platform A, 6 miles at sea, and coated the coastline — and uncounted numbers of shorebirds and marine life.
Communities along the coast exploded in anger at the desecration of their beaches. “People began to scream and yell, then they began to organize,” said McGinnes, 81. As McCloskey had predicted, the disaster launched the practice of environmental law, along with the modern American environmental movement.
McGinnes said the region’s ardor for environmental issues, especially local ones, has never cooled. Residents attend meetings, write letters and, as they did more than 50 years ago, speak up.
The current complaint: Floventis Energy Ltd. has proposed building a 6-square-mile wind farm floating less than 3 miles off the coast of Lompoc and the Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County. The demonstration project, known as CADEMO, would be California’s only offshore wind lease in state waters and the smallest of all the proposed floating wind projects.
The state is still reviewing the project’s lease application, which was submitted in 2019, but Floventis says the small-scale project with four turbines could be producing energy in four years, powering as many as 60,000 homes.
While the wind farms off Morro Bay and Humboldt won’t be visible from the coast, the turbines off Santa Barbara County are much closer to shore and may be visible from high points in coastal towns.
The details are not final, but subsea cables would transmit the electricity to an onshore point near a boat dock south of Point Arguello, and a new onshore substation would be built at Vandenberg, with 11 miles of new overhead power lines, according to the company’s application.
“It’s not a pristine wilderness. Of course we are taking heat, and some people criticize it, and some people think this is the best thing. Do we have all the answers? No.”
Mikael Jakobsson, Floventis Energy
Santa Barbara, with its rooftop solar and electric vehicles, has been fiercely debating offshore wind. McGinness doesn’t see a contradiction with advocating to protect the environment and being skeptical about the impacts of a clean energy source.
“Our demand isn’t that you should pack up and go home,” he said. “Just explain it to us with sufficient clarity so we understand the project.”
Mikael Jakobsson, Floventis Energy’s director, has heard the concerns.
“Obviously it’s a very nice area, but it’s full of activity. It’s not a pristine wilderness. Of course we are taking heat, and some people criticize it, and some people think this is the best thing. Do we have all the answers? No, we do not have all the answers,” he said.
Jakobsson said he aims to use the project as a demonstration — it’s better to develop new floating technology on a smaller scale and learn from it before embarking on building large wind farms in deeper waters.
“We have never been in deeper water than 300 feet. That’s a fact,” he said. “Talk about deploying fixed cables and anchors in dark water — we have never done that before.” Ultimately, he said, the company’s biological data and some technical data will be made public so developers can learn from each other.
In part to minimize impacts on Santa Barbara County, the company says the giant platforms likely would be constructed at the Port of San Francisco, and then towed to the Port of Los Angeles, where the bulk of the work to assemble the turbines and staging of vessels and equipment would occur. Then they would be towed back to the waters off Vandenberg.
Jakobsson said critics should take the long view in the face of an urgent need to address climate change.
“If no one does anything, nothing will happen,” he said. “The house is on fire and you are discussing where we should hang the fire extinguisher.”
Marine impacts are likely, but to what extent?
The ocean off California has the nation’s most desirable wind resource. But because the strongest winds occur far off the coast in deep waters, it is not practical to install traditional platforms that sit on the ocean floor. What’s envisioned instead are wind turbines that float on the surface, tethered to one another and the seabed. It will be the first time in the world that floating wind farms are placed at this depth and distance from shore.
As expected with novel technology deployed in a new environment, it’s almost impossible to say with certainty what the ecological impacts will be. Even the companies building the wind farms are not completely certain about the technology they will deploy.
“Although we can draw on data and information from other parts of the world and from similar industries in California, realistically, we will not be able to know the full scope and scale of impacts from offshore wind to California’s marine resources until projects are in the water and we are able to monitor and measure the resulting effects,” the staff of the California Coastal Commission wrote in a 2022 report.
Benjamin Ruttenberg, director of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s Center for Coastal Marine Sciences, studies human impacts on the ocean and how to manage them. He said he would like to see more information about how ocean creatures may interact with the new floating structures.
“Some critters and some organisms are going to be impacted. There’s no question about that,” Ruttenberg said. “But the bigger question is, is that impact going to be the same as climate is having on the ocean?”
The Coastal Commission staff noted that migratory birds and sea mammals will have to navigate through unfamiliar infrastructure above the waves and under the sea.
“Each offshore wind development project incrementally increases the risk of bird strikes, vessel strikes and entanglement, and increases the impacts of displacement. Whales and seabirds are of particular concern for these types of impacts,” the report found.
There are strategies to reduce the peril for seabirds, for example. Early results from an ongoing project at the Schatz Energy Research Center at Humboldt State University suggest design changes that lessen birds’ attraction to the platforms, such as fewer nighttime lights and reduced areas for perching.
“We will not be able to know the full scope and scale of impacts from offshore wind to California’s marine resources until projects are in the water.”
2022 California Coastal Commission Report
Many of the impacts are likely to occur during construction, a busy time when the massive platforms are towed into position, tethered by piles or anchors driven into the sea floor, with cables running to shore and between platforms, and ships hauling materials and workers.
Marine mammals could get caught up in an array of crisscrossing cables, or trapped in marine debris.
Whales are vulnerable, scientists say, both because of where and how they feed but also how they navigate. Baleen whales like humpbacks move along the seafloor, mouths open and vacuuming krill as they go. Construction noise, boat traffic and an electromagnetic field produced by wind farms’ cables could discombobulate them.
Along the East Coast, an unusual number of humpbacks have been stranded on beaches in the vicinity of offshore wind operations in recent years. But state and federal authorities say there is no evidence that the projects played any role in the deaths of more than 200 whales. The “unusual mortality event” began in 2016, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which blamed ship strikes or entanglement for the deaths.
“Some critters and some organisms are going to be impacted. There’s no question about that. But the bigger question is, is that impact going to be the same as climate is having on the ocean?”
Benjamin Ruttenberg, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s Center for Coastal Marine Sciences
Of the two federal wind lease areas off California, Morro Bay has the highest whale density. Coastal Commission Executive Director Kate Huckelbridge said California will require continuous monitoring for any effects on marine mammals.
“We can understand how one whale will interact with one cable but that doesn’t mean we understand how a population of whales will interact with a project,” she said. “We are pushing to understand the larger scale.”
Powerful ocean winds create an aquatic updraft — known as upwelling — that drags nutrients from the deep sea up where fish, turtles and other creatures gorge on them. The wind turbines could decrease upwelling by as much as 10%, researchers say, reducing the food supply in the area.
Climate change is rapidly altering the world’s oceans, making the siting of renewable energy projects in fragile seascapes a complicated and double-edged proposition for some researchers.
Eleanore Humphries, senior manager of federal ocean policy at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, said the institution supports environmentally-responsible renewable energy projects and the need for scientific review.
“It’s a world-class ecosystem,” she said. “It’s important to acknowledge the need to get crucial baseline monitoring on the water now so that three years from now we’ve got something to evaluate against.”
Conflicted stances by federal agencies
The Department of Defense has long been concerned about development off California’s coast, saying commercial activities could impinge on military training and air defense radar systems. In particular, the Navy deemed offshore wind development incompatible with its mission across wide swaths of the ocean off California.
“As offshore wind develops, so does the possibility that some turbines would be located within the line of site of coastal radar systems. If not mitigated, such wind development could cause clutter and interference for radar systems involved in air traffic control, weather forecasting, homeland security, and national defense missions,” the U.S. Department of Energy says on its website.
But recently, the military did an about-face. The Defense Department signed an agreement in August that established ground rules for the state wind project off Vandenberg. Military representatives in California and Washington, D.C. did not respond to questions from CalMatters.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which operates the national marine sanctuary system, also has made an accommodation for wind development.
In 2015 the Northern Chumash nominated about 7,600 square miles from Cambria to Point Conception to become the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA began the official process in 2021 to declare it a sanctuary.
The designation would protect a unique part of the Pacific that is home to tidepools, kelp forests, whales, seals, sea otters and other marine life — known as the “Serengeti of the Sea.” Although activities such as fishing are not banned in national marine sanctuaries, they often are restricted or require federal permits.
But during the time when the federal agency was considering the Chumash’s application, federal and state officials began leasing wind projects in that same area. This created a conflict, since energy development generally is restricted in national marine protected zones, so the wind industry and the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management sent letters to NOAA advocating for boundary adjustments.
In September, in a controversial move, NOAA redrew the original sanctuary map in a new draft management plan, removing nearly 2,000 square miles from the northern end, from Cambria to Morro Bay. That cut out the federal wind lease area, where the projects’ undersea cables would have been problematic in a sanctuary.
“We need to have conservation and renewables together, they have to work together. But not there. It’s a horrible idea.”
Violet Sage Walker, chumash tribal council
However, the smaller proposed state wind project off Vandenberg remains within the sanctuary boundaries. Because that application is still being processed by the state, NOAA considers it “speculative,” said Paul E. Michel, the agency’s regional policy coordinator. If the wind farm is approved, permits will likely be required.
In an interview with CalMatters before the draft plan was released, Bill Douros, NOAA’s regional director of sanctuaries for the West Coast region, called the sanctuary area an environmental treasure. But he said offshore wind wouldn’t necessarily threaten it.
“How do we find a pathway that will create opportunities where both interests will be met without either one debilitating the other? I’m not sure four wind turbines offshore would unravel all of the protections,” he said.
NOAA’s new plan added some waters to the sanctuary’s southern boundary, stretching to the Gaviota coast. But experts say removing the northern section is troubling because the sanctuary would lose its connectivity to national sanctuaries to the north in Monterey Bay, and to the south, the Channel Islands.
The Chumash, who have resided on the Central Coast for 20,000 years, oppose the boundary changes. They support offshore wind, but are adamant that the siting of the state project tramples on their cultural heritage.
“We have worked so long to get this right, we won’t compromise Morro Bay to get it out of the sanctuary,” said Tribal Council Chair Violet Sage Walker. “We need to have conservation and renewables together, they have to work together. But not there. It’s a horrible idea.”
Walker said Floventis has been insensitive to the tribe’s cultural objections. “If we have to occupy the land again to protect that guy from destroying our stuff, we will,” she said.
Not all Native Americans in the region see it the same way. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians on Friday announced an agreement with Floventis: The tribe will support the project operating within the sanctuary while the company will fund workforce training and other programs, said tribal attorney Sam Cohen.
The federal agency is accepting public comments on its sanctuary plan until Oct. 25, with a designation expected sometime next year.
Data gaps and scarce information
International companies come to Elizabeth Diller when they need a jungle guide to lead them through the tangle of federal and state environmental permitting of large projects.
Diller, the offshore wind director at the international consulting firm ICF, said wind developers — many accustomed to European regulations or state rules on the Atlantic Seaboard — are in for a shock when they encounter the density of California’s environmental oversight.
“It does add a layer of complexity,” Diller said. “If you work on the East Coast you deal with federal agencies and state agencies, but not with the rigor as in California.”
More than a dozen federal and state agencies have a role in assessing the projects, which also will require a massive infusion of private and public funds. Each of the five wind farms off California’s coast could cost $5 billion to develop, construct and assemble.
“It’s a new industry in California and a new technology on this scale and in an environment that has never seen this infrastructure,” Diller said. “The agencies don’t know a lot about offshore wind, they don’t know a lot about the technology and they have never regulated or permitted any of it. It’s going to be a big challenge to get these projects off the ground.”
Saying she can’t endorse projects that her community has heard so much about but understands so little, San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Debbie Arnold abstained from the board’s 4-0 vote last summer supporting offshore wind development.
She said she is open-minded about wind energy but she attended a congressional hearing and didn’t like the way officials spoke about the region. “They were talking to us like we were just some little spot, like local citizens don’t matter,” Arnold said.
“I get the feeling like there are some policy makers who are jumping the gun, who are pushing this. If you ask people, for the most part they live in this county to not live in a big area of industrialization. Most people have a fondness for just the way it is.”
State Sen. John Laird, a strong supporter of offshore wind, participated in a town hall meeting in Morro Bay, with the intent of discussing the offshore wind projects.
“People had big apprehensions and there was limited knowledge,” the Santa Cruz Democrat said. “The one time everyone applauded was when I said that it will be subject to environmental review and we will work to mitigate every impact.
“People have tremendous concerns and there hasn’t been enough work done to at least give a context for what little information there is on these projects.”
Linda Krop, chief counsel of the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center, said the accelerated pace of the projects makes them vulnerable to legal challenges in the future. It was a mistake, she said, that federal officials hadn’t conducted an environmental analysis of the entire Central Coast lease area, “from the air to the water column to the sea floor” before the leases occurred.
The normal environmental review process will be streamlined and truncated, she said, at the behest of state and federal officials, which she said is “opening the door for challenges.”
Jenn Eckerle, California’s deputy secretary for oceans and coastal policy, said there is another way of looking at the harvesting of wind: The projects are focusing a lens on an understudied part of the planet.
“We are going to address data and research gaps, and the leasees will support funding for that,” she said. “If nothing else, the first wave of projects will create a repository of information about what goes on in the deep ocean. Information is power.”
NIMBY lives even in the environmentalist movement it seems. I understand there are those in Morro Rock area who are lobbying to retain the electrical generating station that has disfigured this beautiful area for decades! If you grow up with ugly you may actually learn to treasure ugly it seems. Of course if the awful industrial buildings are removed there will be more tourism. But this is a function of increasing population pressures accompanied by global climate change which makes this area more habitable. For someone to complain that we should not improve the neighborhood because they have a view out their window is pretty selfish and strange. Having production off shore is clearly better than on shore where the generators on top of hills are viewable for dozens of miles in some places. Let’s proceed with appropriate care and mitigation. For one thing, direct shipping to go miles off these devices for example.
Wind and solar are not the panacea in what environmentalists think they are in fighting global warming. In fact, wind and solar farms are the new silent spring. In order to just build the materials that go into turbines and solar panels, we behold ourselves the other countries, especially China. Further, the equipment once built, does not last. The extraction of the materials are environmentally damaging and devastating to environments. Animal and insect casualties, as a result of wind and solar farms, are so devastating, the deaths have been suppressed for the last decade. Birds of prey, other birds, bats and insects succumb in large numbers to turbines and solar panels. If the US was to go mostly electric, it would have to take over 48% of the contiguous land in the US to do so. New locations for mining materials for these green products will devastate wild and wilderness areas in North America. Electric energy so full of so many dirty secrets, it is a shame so many are jumping on this Lemming train off the cliff. We are spending so much on wind and solar electric power sourcing, that we are failing to explore efficiencies of combustion engines and other sources for energy. Look at your individual life. What are roads made out of? Unless you are wearing natural fiber materials, your clothes are made of petroleum. We need true honesty to the limitations of ‘renewables’ and the environmental and wildlife destructiveness they cause.
Utter propaganda from the carbon shills.
CHIP? lol
This whole carbon reduction thing is a fallacy and a farce. It is based upon hearsay and seat-of-the-pants “feel good” opinions.
There are more and more learned presentations based upon FACTS that show reducing carbon dioxide will slow global warming. The two are unrelated. Historic data actually shows atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide levels hav gone in opposite directions.
The Achilles heel of the climate alarmists data is the models don’t agree with past data, and erroneously predict future data. Rather than repeat the learned science based upon facts here, please see these factual articles done by John Christy pHd, William Happer pHd, and Murry Salby pHd:
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULpGDnuz308
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8niiyDn2FI
just to reference a few. Google climate change and carbon dioxide relationships for more facts.
I was watching a YouTube video last night discussing the fallacy of making trains and 18-wheeler trucking all electric. Long story short, the power grid would have to supply significantly more power than the total that cities in which the charging takes place now consume, by many times.
The same thing can be said for electric car future. Case in point: a month ago, or so, when we had a heat wave, Edison sent out an alert asking people not charge cars during the day, since the air conditioning load is already peaking the electric grid capacity.
When the electric grid faces capacity, rolling blackouts will be instituted.
There is no free lunch
83% of our electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels.
“I was watching a YouTube video last night…” & LEARNED that the Earth is actually FLAT! (wow good to know!)
Just more carbon shill baloney. The rate of atmospheric temperature rate increase absolutely tracks CO2 concentrations.
or…. CO2 concentrations track increases in temperature. Correlation does not equal causation. There have also been periods in history where CO2 levels have been higher while temperatures were lower. No I am not a “carbon shill”, but the human caused CO2 impact on our climate has been grossly exaggerated at the expense of much more important matters like plastics in our ocean and clean drinking water.
It’s true that there have been periods of global warming and cooling—also related to spikes and lulls in greenhouse gases—during the Earth’s long history. But those historic increases in CO2 should be a warning to us. Today, humans are emitting greenhouse gases at a far higher rate than any previous increase in history.
Uh….. VOICE, just a head’s up. We could all see it was you that submitted this comment when it went to the penalty box. Nice try “arguing” from a third person (Anonymous) point of view. Next time, just keep your name on it.
The YouTube links are utter dreck. And, if you actually read the Skeptical Science link, you’ll see it’s a complete debunking of Christy’s disinformation, and is even headed with “Climate Misinformation by Source: John Christy”.
Anyone who bases their decisions on the facts of climate science, rather than Big Carbon propaganda, knows that atmospheric CO2 is the driver. It ain’t called AGW for nuthin.
Buildings kill between 100 million and 1 billion birds annually. Nice echo chamber drivel. No mention of what damage refineries cause. The waste that comes out of refineries are toxic. “We are spending so much on wind and solar electric power sourcing, that we are failing to explore efficiencies of combustion engines and other sources for energy.” So he’s telling us no one is researching efficient combustion or other forms of energy – again, complete untrue nonsense. ” If the US was to go mostly electric, it would have to take over 48% of the contiguous land in the US to do so. ” More BS – Elon musk and other manufacturers calculate next generation panels with 20% efficiency could reduce the necessary areas to 10,000 square miles. I swear these people watch a pro petrol Youtube video and feel like they have a PHD because they have “done their research”.
Carefully researched and informed. Hard to imagine anyone could try to argue the points made but I see at least one in the comment section already. Yeesh.
Don’t feel bad Anonymous.
Hard to make the indoctrinated to listen and comprehend.
3 generations of this stuff makes generations of useful idiots spreading the same BS, which means meaningful change is impossible.
Dang reality gets in the way.
Especially when they shun an existing to solution to both C02 and the downsides of wind/solar – nuclear energy. They are being driven by feelings and not facts..
Fission power is hideously expensive, slow to come online, and produces waste that is deadly for millennia. Ridiculous to consider it any kind of solution.
That is simply false. Per unit of electricity produced it is one of, if not the cheapest source of energy and definitely takes up the least amount of land.
“That is simply false.” No, VOICE, it’s not. Your response is simply wrong. You avoided all but only 1 aspect of ANON’s comment (re: cost). I submitted a comment that seems to have disappeared with links to support all of ANON’s claims, so we’ll see if that gets posted.
In short, renewables are FAR cheaper to develop and build, not to mention on going maintenance and personnel costs. Nuke plants take years of permitting and then years of construction. Finally, to dispute that nuclear waste is not deadly for thousands of years is to ignore cold hard facts. Not surprising you’d do that.
Next time, make and effort and prove that it’s “simply false,” instead of just saying it and being “simply wrong.”
Hilarious watching oil-loving Conservatives become overnight “environmentalists” when it comes to renewable energy. When it comes down to it, they’ve politicized it, like they do with everything non-political. “Libs like green, therefore we hate it.”
Facts are simple. Fossil fuels are not only FILTHY and destroying our planet, they’re finite. To push back against progress in renewable energy is truly mindless and selfish. No, they’re not perfect or 100% “green,” but would you rather have nothing than something? $1 or none? Bloody nose or stage 4 cancer? Heck, oil and gas tech was NEVER even close to “perfect,” yet here you are begging to keep it. LOL figure it out, folks.
I want my grandkids to have a clean planet. Why don’t you care about yours?
Ahh yes… only the “oil-Loving Conservatives” politicize “everything non-political”…. definitely a one way street, you’re totally right….
ANON – pointing out that conservatives do something isn’t “making it political.” Come folks, it’s Halloween, dig deep for that common sense logic!
20 miles offshore!! You will barely be able to see these things and these nimbys are comparing it to altering Morro rock. Those opposed to wind need to turn their lights off immediately. They already have deablo power plant that could receive the power and put it on the grid. It’s a no brainier, this isn’t something you need to gather and chitchat about.
It’s only getting worse as we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67242386
Fossil fuels must go away, and soon.
Environmentalist vs environmentalist? What are we coming to? The long term future of life on earth for humans dictates that we must deal with the reality that carbon dioxide reduction is necessary! Wind and solar will help. Continued use of fossil fuels will not.
” long term future of life on earth for humans” that is utter propaganda, you are being gaslit. Calling BS to statements like that doesn’t mean I support pollution or don’t think we should wean off fossil fuels, it means I have common sense.
“Please re-read sacjon as I said nothing of the sort.” – Actually, you did. You did very much say, “that is utter propaganda, you are being gaslit” in response to Buckwheat saying CO2 reduction is necessary to the long term future of human life. Those were YOUR WORDS. Why would you lie about something so blatant? Oh wait, you’re grasp of the English language and simple reading comprehension is severely lacking. Sorry, forgot about that.
Only a true carbon shill (and oh yes, you very much are one) would deny that excessive CO2 is harmful to the survival of our species.
By first directly quoting Buckwheat, then making my comment, I was specifically pointing out where my comment was directed. It is insanely disingenuous to apply my comment to other things Buckwheat said outside of my quotations and then call me a blatant liar who can’t grasp simple reading comprehension. This is pretty far out there, even for you.
My Lord you’re full of it. Deflect and dodge all you want, but YOU specifically called the notion that what Buckwheat said was “utter propaganda.”
What did Buckwheat say? Here’s what Buckwheat said: “The long term future of life on earth for humans dictates that we must deal with the reality that carbon dioxide reduction is necessary! Wind and solar will help. Continued use of fossil fuels will not.”
What YOUR WORDS MEAN: You think the claim that “carbon dioxide reduction is necessary” to the future of human life is “utter propaganda.” There is NO WAY to spin that any other way.
Lie away, but your words made that claim. Again, to think that’s not what you said is evidence of your complete and total lack of reading comprehension.
That’s all, there’s no dodging that. Done.
VOICE – “” long term future of life on earth for humans” that is utter propaganda, you are being gaslit. ” – So, you seriously don’t believe that the continued use of fossil fuels is affecting our planet in the long term? Oh wait, you also suggested that you believed CHIP when he said “oil and gas is cleaner than wind and solar.” Maybe keep the wildly incorrect fantasies to yourself?
Please re-read sacjon as I said nothing of the sort. I didn’t say continued use won’t affect our planet, (it will but not in any drastic way) and certainly won’t threaten the “long term future of life on earth for humans”. Uncomfortable fact for you and others, fossil fuels have led to drastic, like orders of magnitude drastic, reduction in deaths due to natural disasters, climate/weather related and other, continue to do so today and will for the foreseeable future until energy densities of electric batteries and portable generation can equal that of gasoline. Emergency generators, emergency vehicles, powerline repair vehicles, heavy equipment, etc. can not be replaced by electricity anytime in the foreseeable future. Tesla semi’s are the closest, but we don’t have anywhere near the electric generation, transmission, and charging capabilities to utilize it on any measurable scale. Santa Barbara doesn’t even have enough electricity to support fully electric fedex/ups/postal/delivery truck fleet. Nuclear power will get us there sooner, but that industry has been unscientifically villainized.
Congratulations – The fossil fuel industry has funded disinformation campaigns for 40+ years to shape your thinking about the environment to this point.
Those are facts GT, irrelevant to what the fossil fuel industry position is. Do a little math and calculate how much electricity a delivery truck needs each day, times the number of trucks in the city. Math doesn’t lie, we don’t have nearly enough electrical capacity and no real plan to get there.
Your “facts” are not credible, nor are you, when you maintain the position that it’s “utter propaganda” that CO2 reduction is critical to the long term survival of the human race.
the local delivery vehicles is a simple example, one I thought could be basic enough for you to understand, on why electrification on the scale you desire is many decades away with no clear path to get there. Your guys ability to throw common sense, critical thinking, and in Sacjon’s case terrible and selective reading comprehension, totally out the window due to your desire to argue with anyone that dares critique your holier than thou opinions knows no bounds.
VOICE – you get one last chance at this.
Did you or did you not (YES or NO) say that Buckwheat’s claim that the “long term future of life on earth for humans dictates that we must deal with the reality that carbon dioxide reduction” is “utter propaganda?”
Yes or No? Are those not your words in response to his/hers?
You can explain how that is “selective” comprehension or you can just keep lying. I bet I know which you’ll choose…..
” I thought could be basic enough for you to understand, on why electrification on the scale you desire” I don’t recall \ stating how much electrification I desire. Please enlighten me on what I am thinking.
“totally out the window due to your desire to argue with anyone that dares critique your holier than thou opinions knows no bounds.” Yet you exhibit the behavior you are describing and refuse to look in the mirror in fear of an ego bruise.
The Republicans certainly seem interested in the lithium money grab.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-republicans-aim-shorten-ev-mine-permitting-after-house-win-2022-11-17/
Voice is the only one that made delivery trucks a “critical” part of the climate change discussion. Still looking for the block button in this new format…..
You can always rely on voice to take the contrafactual stance on just about any subject.
Those are facts. Which ones do you think are “contrafactual”?
That CO2 reduction is necessary for the long term survival of the human race. You don’t think that FACT is true. Ergo (that means therefore), you are taking the contrafactual stance. You are on the opposite of truth and facts, again. You do this on almost every subject you comment on.
“I didn’t say continued use won’t affect our planet, (it will but not in any drastic way) and certainly won’t threaten the “long term future of life on earth for humans”.”
Continued use of fossil fuels increases CO2. Increasing CO2 levels is bad for human beings in the long run. Yes or no?
I know this is an old article, but a very interesting article came out today, including a new study on the effects on birds, so I think it’s relevant and important to understand how the myths about wind and solar are being debunked more and more as the tech advances. With new projects using solar panels and wind turbine blades with 30 year lifespans and the recycling tech for these beginning to boom, imagine where we could be at the end of those 30 year lifespans with potentially fully “green” renewable energy. Now is not the time to hinder this progress.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/02/04/green-energy-fact-checked/72390472007/
And yet the fossil fuel propagandists will continue to spew falsehoods. Mental pollution.
The Green Agenda is unsustainable as presented. Government(s) CAN NOT force industries, corporations and the public at large to swallow these insane government mandates (mad-dates).
https://www.bworldonline.com/agribusiness/2024/02/05/573441/french-farmers-head-home-but-anger-spreads-elsewhere-in-europe/
Really???
bworldonline = BusinessWorld, a business newspaper in the Philippines that has published climate misinformation in the past.
Some people have no BS filters in their brains, and can’t seem to evaluate the credibility of their sources.