1984 Redux: The power of words and Going Green

There is an old saying: The first casualty of war is truth.

Misinformation, disinformation and using derogatory labels for the enemy is standard.

And so too in the battle to "Go Green" and the fear of Climate Change.

Now the term "Climate Change" is a neutral and factual label.

And the terms “wind turbine" and "solar panels" are also factual and neutral.

But much else in the debate is slanted word manipulation.

"Go Green" is an ad agency type slogan designed to push emotional buttons. To link to the natural beauty of grass, shrubs and evergreen trees.

And so too is the word “RENEWABLE” energy.

Now the word "renewable" sounds great as it contains the ad agency's preferred term "new" and stresses the energy can be produced again and again forever.

For wind turbines and solar panels this is only a half-truth.

It ignores the obvious facts: solar panels and wind turbines produce electricity SPORADICALLY and INTERMITTANTLY.

Solar panels work no more than 12 hours a day on average -- and only if there is no cloud cover or rain or snowfall.

Wind turbines do nothing if the wind dies down or changes direction -- and is notorious for mass murder of bats and birds to the point some species are becoming endangered.[i]

By the same token and messaging, the enemy of solar and wind technology is labeled "fossil fuels".

Oil, gas, tar sands and coal are NOT "fossils".

“Fossils” means the bone remains of dead animals or humans, found buried in the ground relatively close to the surface, or their mineralized 'ghost-like" shadows.

Oil and gas are found far, far deeper underground and are not animal or human remains, i.e., NOT fossils. They are the by-products of the Earth as it digests mostly dead plant matter, algae and plankton, over millions of years into basic components: liquid and gas.[ii] The equivalent of urine and farts.

Tar sands -- which the industry prefers to call "oil sands" to minimize the public's aversion to the former, common term "tar" -- is really bitumen, i.e., semi-digested plant, algae and plankton, etc. material found close to the surface where once there had been large lakes, wetlands and seas.[iii]

Coal is also a natural by-product of the Earth, a sedimentary rock formed over millions of years from once wetland areas and their plant matter, etc.[iv]

So labelling oil, gas, tar sands and coal: all products of the Earth, as “fossil fuels” is highly inaccurate and marketing hype.

In the war of words -- and to sway the emotions and hearts of the public – word choices and labels are being manipulated and games played.

In defense of oil, gas, tar sands and coal, one could call them equally "Nature's gifts", "the Earth's gifts", “Gaia’s gifts” or "Nature's bounty", “the Earth’s bounty” and “Gaia’s bounty”.

If the real concern is the emission of CO2, methane and the Greenhouse effect, then people and governments should wake up to Gaia's gifts and promote CO2 and Methane capture. Both of which can be done with currently existing technologies.

Oil and gas companies have for years used such technology to reduce their Greenhouse gas outputs and make extra money from CO2 sales to manufacturers.

It is an essential ingredient as “a refrigerant, in fire extinguishers, for inflating life rafts and life jackets, blasting coal, foaming rubber and plastics, promoting the growth of plants in greenhouses, immobilizing animals before slaughter, and in carbonated beverages.”[v]

It can also be ‘recycled’ and ‘sequestered’ in the manufacture of concrete blocks as at Glenwood Mason Supply Company Inc., Brooklyn, NY.[vi]

Now with New York State trying to reduce CO2 emissions, with fines for ‘polluters’, even New York city skyscrapers are getting into CO2 capture and sale.

One 30 storey skyscraper has installed carbon capture technology in its basement alongside its heating boilers – and sells the captured CO2 to manufacturers who use CO2 inn their production.[vii]

As for methane, it is the same as the natural gas piped to people’s homes and business fort heating and cooking. So, captured methane can readily be ‘recycled’ as a heating and cooking fuel.[viii]

Put simply, CO2 capture technologies exist and is spreading, and soon too Methane capture and their ‘reuse’.

Why such useful products have been left to fly out the chimney and go to waste – and overload the atmosphere – has always surprised me.

Concern over Climate Change has finally gotten people and companies to smarten up!

As for the purists who only want solar panels and wind turbines, without spectacular leaps in battery storage systems, solar and wind power will never be able to "run the world".

Europe learned this the hard way in the winter of 2022 as for months North Sea wind turbines stood still and continuous cloud cover made solar energy a joke. And the Russian invasion of Ukraine and related sanctions and gas pipeline damage ended heating fuel from the East. So the abundant coal mines of France and Germany were re-opened. And Austria, the Netherlands and Italy also reopened their coal burning power plants. [ix]

CONCLUSION

Until such time as there is an major breakthrough in battery storage technology, the realistic solution is to continue to use the Earth's unlimited and bountiful resources: gas, oil, tar sands and coal.

PS:

Surprisingly, another product of the Earth, the natural mineral uranium is not stigmatized and is favoured by Climate Change/Go Green advocates as it produces no CO2 or Methane when used to produce electricity.[x]

But such thinking ignores the obvious: due to human error, equipment/software breakdown or earthquakes and tsunamis, every nuclear power plant is a massive time-bomb waiting to go off. Remember Three Mile Island[xi], Chernobyl[xii] and Fukushima[xiii] nuclear catastrophes.

Now these plants were shut down before a full nuclear melt down or explosion but radiation released from the immediate disaster entered the air allowing enormous levels of radiation to spread around the world and, in Fukushima’s case, also the oceans.

Those who lived within 10 miles of the Three Mile Island plant have had far higher rates of cancer[xiv] and towns and villages around Chernobyl and Fukashima have had to be abandoned as too radioactive.

The maximum, high risk “Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl” is 1000 square miles.[xv]

As for Fukushima, located on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, the initial Exclusion Zone was a mere 12 1/2 miles radius on land (and an equal ocean area) but later that was expanded and the US advisory zone (to avoid) is a radius of 50 miles.[xvi]

And no commercial aircraft was allowed to fly overhead within a 19 mile radius – to ensure travellers and crew did not become harmed by lingering atmosphere radiation.[xvii]

In Chernobyl’s case, 350,000 people have had to be ‘resettled elsewhere’[xviii]

In Fukushima’s case, well over 300,000 people had to evacuate their homes[xix]. But how many had to resettle elsewhere is not known.

After more than 11 years, the government of Japan allowed residents to return to the Katsurao village area – 24 miles from the plant.[xx]

As of April 16, 2023, Germany has permanently shut down all its nuclear plants.[xxi]

The process began within days after the Fukashima disaster when Germany‘s Chancellor Angela Merkel suddenly realized the consequences of such a nuclear plant disaster for Germany[xxii] and its 80 million citizen: with its then 17 nuclear reactors spread around the country and near major cities.[xxiii]

Its major cities and population centres[xxiv] of Berlin (3,677,472), Hamburg (1,906,411), Munich (1,487,408), Cologne (1,073,096) and others were so close to nuclear power plants – well under 100 km[xxv], that any radiation leak -- let alone full meltdown – would cost millions of lives!

Cities, towns, villages, factories and farmland all would be devastated!

And no one has ever figured out how to safely store LONG TERM still radioactive ‘spent’ fuel rods, worn out radioactive piping and other parts, and the radioactive water from ‘cooling’ ponds.’

All are in “temporary locations” for decades![xxvi]

[i] Re: birds see https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/n-s-approves-wind-farm-but-federal-officials-worry-project-would-kill-at-risk-birds-1.6392037; https://www.evwind.es/2020/10/01/the-realities-of-bird-and-bat-deaths-by-wind-turbines/77477 ; https://www.audubon.org/news/wind-power-and-birdsm and https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/ and re: bats https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-are-bats-affected-wind-turbines and https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-are-bats-affected-wind-turbines#:~:text=Dead%20bats%20are%20found%20beneath,year%20in%20North%20America%20alone.