Breitbart Writes Donald Would Be “Way More Beneficial To The Environment” Than Hillary

Rising conservative media star Breitbart here writes that “A Donald Trump presidency would be way more beneficial to the environment than a Hillary Clinton presidency“.

This could come as a bit of a surprise for some when you consider the turbo-level of economic growth and prosperity a Trump program would almost certainly usher in.

Yet, contrary to what anti-growthers may think, there are many reasons why high growth would be great for the environment. Number one manufacturing would relocate from dirty third world conditions (China, India) back to more modern and cleaner conditions in the USA. Making and buying locally are almost always better for the environment.

Number 2, prosperity also means more money for environmental clean ups.

Number 3: Money would finally pour into massively upgrading the USA’s crumbling and inefficient transportation system, which is plagued by traffic jams, inefficient networks and road conditions that lead to wasteful energy consumption.

Number 4, prosperous nations by far tend to have lower population growth.

Another big reason would be because the energy production systems proposed by Trump are far gentler on wildlife and nature than the industrialization of the wilderness by wind farms would be. Breitbart writes:

Consider just one example: the hundreds of thousands of rare birds and endangered bats slaughtered in the US every year by the wind farms that Hillary Clinton applauds (and will no doubt go on subsidising) and that Donald Trump loathes (and will no doubt starve of subsidies and cause to become as extinct as the Dodo).

As the Daily Beast recently noted, Trump’s hatred of wind farms is probably the most consistent and long-standing of all his political convictions.

They add:

Trump has a point. If you care about flying wildlife, bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes really are about the most pointlessly destructive form of power generation there is – as a series of recent studies shows.”

Continue reading here.

Of course Breitbart was too easy on wind technology. Wind parks in fact blight the natural landscape, disturb the often delicate hydrological systems in the areas they are located, lead to mass deforestation, and eco-system disruption if not outright annihilation.

And then there are also the huge social consequences of exorbitantly costly and unstable energy for the poor.

 

57 responses to “Breitbart Writes Donald Would Be “Way More Beneficial To The Environment” Than Hillary”

  1. David Appell

    “Wind parks in fact blight the natural landscape, disturb the often delicate hydrological systems in the areas they are located, lead to mass deforestation, and eco-system disruption if not outright annihilation.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. From this blog, March 2011:

    Number of bird deaths per unit of energy:
    http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/24/nuclear-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-opposition-is-a-glaring-denial-of-reality/

    1. yonason

      That’s alleged industry related HUMAN fatalities, not bird deaths. And the original source of those numbers is an activist, which immediately puts his numbers in question, IMO. Also, the biggest contributors to those deaths (for coal) is China, whose record of concern for safety in any field is pretty abysmal. Take China out of the picture, and there really isn’t a lot to see there.

      1. DirkH

        Amazing that science journalist David Appell thinks that birds die in coal mines.

        Also, the biggest killer of humans is missing in that statistic: wood. We burn 1 cubic kilometer of coal a year but 2 cubic kilometers of wood. Felling trees is about the most dangerous activity you can do for work – given you’re not in an ultramodern harvester; which most lumberjacks around the planet aren’t.

        1. AndyG55

          Rotten Appell is NOT a science journalist except in his own mind..

          He is sci-fantasy low-end wannabe.

        2. AndyG55

          He probably makes more money with his aimless drivel on blog sites, than he would as a journalist, even for the back-water rag he pretends to write for.

        3. AndyG55

          I doubt that Appell has ever cut a stick of wood in his whole lifetime.

  2. CraigAustin

    The goal of every environmental group is to reduce the population of the globe by 85-99%. This cannot be accomplished by “saving lives”, if your vision includes billions of dead humans, why would a few million dead birds and bats bother you?

  3. sod

    Wind has been powering Scotland for a full day:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scotland-wind-energy-renewable-power-electricity-wwf-scotland-a7183006.html

    But if Trump is not convinced, it must be a fake number!

    1. David Johnson

      Wow!! What was it doing the day before? You must really hate wildlife and poor people. Your fixation disgusts me.

    2. mikewaite

      But on the 10th June the whole of UK metered windpower was less than 0.1GW against a UK demand of 30GW . Not the sort of system for a modern industrialised country is it? But perhaps the Scots believe that they can live for evermore on tartan tourism and the rent from the windfarms.
      Meanwhile alongside the variations in windpower nuclear just ploughs steadily on,6- 8 GW. If you had responsibility for the leadership of a modern advanced economy which would you prefer?

      1. sod

        “If you had responsibility for the leadership of a modern advanced economy which would you prefer?”

        I would prefer a mix of technologies.

        But i would heavily invest in the future of energy technology, which is wind and solar.

        Britain should aim for 30 to 40% wind in another decade.

        1. AndyG55

          “I would prefer a mix of technologies.”

          So would I, 95+% Fossil Fuel, Nuclear, and Hydro where appropriate.

          Whatever is most appropriate for the locality, and also continues to supply much needed CO2 to the atmosphere.

          Minimal wind and solar, only as remote area, niche, supply systems. They are pointless and too erratic for any serious electrical supply system.

          That is the COMMONSENSE approach.

          1. sod

            “So would I, 95+% Fossil Fuel, Nuclear, and Hydro where appropriate.”

            Well, your system would be more expensive than mine and (in most countries) it would depend on constant fossil deliveries from abroad.

            While my country would invest into the power of the future.

            “Whatever is most appropriate for the locality, and also continues to supply much needed CO2 to the atmosphere.”

            The constant repetition of this incredibly stupid claim is really damaging the reputation of this site. If people can make such stupid claims here without being contradicted by the host, what to expect from the rest?

          2. DirkH

            sod 11. August 2016 at 10:15 PM | Permalink
            “Well, your system would be more expensive than mine”

            Your system devours 30 billion Euros a year in subsidies in Germany alone.

            The solar and wind business is a purely parasitic sector akin to organized crime. The political caste has willingly taken the opportunity to partake in the theft and is now entirely self-serving. So warmunism helped discredit the old political parties and showed them to be grifters. They have now embarked on their next catastrophic project – and within one year created another 30 bn EUR per year fraud – the asylum industry – further growth of the Islamisation business will put warmunism to shame. We had growth rates of 15% per year for the warmunist fraud; Islamisation promises to increase the damage by 100% a year.

          3. DirkH

            “The constant repetition of this incredibly stupid claim is really damaging the reputation of this site. If people can make such stupid claims here without being contradicted by the host, what to expect from the rest?”

            Well it is you who constantly boasts about some speck of land getting one seventh of its energy needs (meaning, 100% of the electricity) from wind turbines, and continue claiming that as a great success when it is just economic destruction – and you call other people stupid? Well I guess you’re just a grifter and you need to try to continue to keep the propaganda going so you can steal some more.

            Of course, what will break the back of the warmunist fraud is the Islamisation which already devours all remaining resources – The Total State is shifting priorities away from the old fraud to the new fraud.

            Soon, sod will run around telling us what a great population the imported Muslims are – he just needs to shift his investments from birdkillers to the asylum industry. Wait for it.

          4. AndyG55

            The constant moronic claim that CO2 is somehow bad for the environment highlight the ABSOLUTE IDIOCY of the WHOLE CAGW farce.

            And you poor sop, are one that highlights that IDIOCY to the max. !!

          5. AndyG55

            “Well, your system would be more expensive than mine”

            UTTER and COMPLETE BS !!

            Only if someone else pays for it.

            CO2, one of the two main molecules required for ALL LIFE ON EARTH, is currently only just above the lowest level it has been in the whole existence of the planet.

            ALL extra CARBON that we can manage to release from its accidental sequestration as coal, or gas, back into the shorter term CRABON CYCLE, is a MASSIVE BENEFIT TO ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

          6. AndyG55

            Pierre, can you please fix that typo of CARBON CYCLE, when you pass the post from moderation. Thanks.

          7. AndyG55

            “into the power of the future. ”

            The future of wind and solar is utter collapse as soon as subsidies and mandated use are removed.

            They CANNOT compete on an even playing field.

            They are a MONEY SINK, which is lucky to draw even on investment over their whole life time.

          8. yonason

            @DirkH

            “Soon, sod will run around telling us what a great population the imported Muslims are” – DirkH

            Heck, we don’t need sod for that. Here are some of the fringe benefits we already know about.

            http://www.weaselzippers.us/289369-sharia-police-spotted-in-german-cities/#disqus_thread

            http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2016/08/unexpectedly-german-intelligence-warns.html

          9. yonason

            @DirkH

            Add this to my last (when it comes out of moderation)
            http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/another-terror-attack-swiss-man-lights-train-fire-goes-stabbing-spree/

            That burning stabbing pain you feel? It just might be the cultural diversity you’ve heard Leftists blathering about lately.

      2. Dave Ward

        “But perhaps the Scots believe that they can live for evermore on tartan tourism”

        Not when those tourists find the landscape they went to admire is completely taken over by subsidy farms.

        1. Dave Ward

          “While my country would invest into the power of the future”

          Which, of course, means the future than greenies like sod want – one which will only support a fraction of the current population, and that tiny fraction will have to endure a lifestyle devoid of the things we take for granted now…

          If only there were two parallel universes – and every citizen had to choose which one he or she could live in. There is one of those “reality” shows on the telly at the moment, where a bunch of young people have been dumped in a remote area with only the clothes they are wearing. The aim is to see if they can start from scratch and build a “Sustainable” lifestyle. The last I heard one of them is already on the point of quitting, and the rest have split into two different groups. In this instance, “Reality” is what will really happen if sod (and his chums) get their way. A complete breakdown of society…

    3. yonason

      They don’t want the electricity, they just want to slow the wind down a bit.

      1. yonason
  4. John F. Hultquist

    … mix of technologies.

    The other types of the “mix” are quite inefficient when run at 60 to 70% — thus these will have to be government projects (tax payers).
    Thus, basically energy becomes government energy (GE).
    I assume that is the plan.

    1. sod

      “The other types of the “mix” are quite inefficient when run at 60 to 70% ”

      No, they are not. Please stop making up such nonsense. please provide real evidence for such claims!

      1. DirkH

        Evidence: Economic damage of 30 billion Euros a year in Germany alone.

        Not even speaking of decoration of erstwhile beautiful landscapes with 200 m high propeller stands and the extinction of rare birds of prey – showing the Green party to be in fact a normal communist party, nothing more.

        1. yonason

          sod writes:

          “Please stop making up such nonsense. please provide real evidence…”

          Funny. Everyone here has been asking him to do that for as long as I’ve been reading this blog. He has yet to comply.

      2. DirkH

        It needs to be pointed out again and again that the minuscule electricity output of wind turbines and solar panels is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT when compared to the gargantuan costs: These devices are for all intents and purposes MONEY REDISTRIBUTION MACHINES – not electricity generating devices. That they do provide tiny, random amounts of electricity is secondary – maybe tertiary when we consider the damage to wildlife to be more important.

        The wind and solar madness is not only a regression to 16th century Dutch technology but also a regression to central planning. How much of the collapse of the EU can be attributed to the parasitic overgrowth of Brussels is anyones guess. Before Spain got obliterated they prided themselves of producing more wind electricity per capita than Germany. Those boasts of yore are long gone and an entire generation scraping for crumbs on the streets.

        1. DirkH

          …the regression to early 20th century central planning methods in spite of von Mises proof of the nonviability of central planning – from 1920 ! – can be attributed to a degeneration of the intelligence of the political caste to a level that can only be called record-low, abysmal, Idiocracy-type stupidity – combined with greed and reckless abandon.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

          It looks very much like the Western Empire has a nonworking method of selecting leaders. The “Geistesaristokratie” that Kalergi envisioned when he planned Pan-Europa turns out to be geriatric alcoholic like Schulz and Juncker.

          1. DirkH

            Next to me in the train today was a Brussels Boy; a young apparatchik in his suit with his Apple notebook and a big stash of regulations that he studied intensively while scribbling notes down. What a life. The poor moron, sifting through 500 pages of new regulations to make the life of the EU peon more hell. That’s how you do it. These boys don’t pay income tax because they’re the cogs that keep the Total State whirring – into the abbyss.

          2. yonason

            @DirkH 12. August 2016 at 2:49 AM

            The sand in the gears of civilization. The sugar in humanity’s gas tank.

      3. Dave Ward

        “No, they are not. Please stop making up such nonsense. please provide real evidence for such claims!”

        sod, have you never heard of “Specific Fuel Consumption”??? And no, I’m NOT giving you a link – damn well Google it yourself! Every type of combustion engine has a point in its operating range where the most output power is derived from the least fuel input. It’s why all modern trucks have a “Green” band on the tachometer, and drivers are encouraged to keep the engine speed in this (relatively) narrow band. Yes, you can rev it higher if you want, but all that does is use more diesel for little or no extra performance. A fixed speed engine (such as on a generator) doesn’t have the luxury of a multi speed gearbox, so it is preferable to keep it running at a constant load. This is much more difficult when trying to stabilise a grid filled with rapidly changing solar and wind energy.

        1. sod

          “sod, have you never heard of “Specific Fuel Consumption”??? ”

          yes. so you think in the current grid every thing is running at the perfect point of fuel consumption 100% of the time?

  5. AndyG55

    Wow, here’s a wind project that the sad sop will approve of.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/one-small-islands-dream-of-energy-self-sufficiency-at-a-cost-of-12-million/

    Only $128,763 per household. !!!!! roflmao !!

    1. sod

      please read the full article:

      http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/752623.html

      The simple truth is, that several Korean islands are trying to reach a high percentage of renewables.

      What was once a carzy project by a few is now becoming mainstream (must be that green movement in Korea, eh?).

      The simple facts are:

      1. Islands have very high electricty costs, as they use diesel

      2. solar and wind can compete on most mainland sites with grid electricity. They can do so easily with the much more expensive diesel on islands.

      3. diesel makes a good backup for renewables.

      so going 50% renewables is a no-brainer for most islands and we will see it happen everywhere. Just sit and watch. Or read your own articles and follow the links!

  6. yonason

    This article has the cost at $12.49 million.
    http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/752623.html
    So for a population of 178, that works out to $70,168.00 per person.

    They still usually get 58% of their power from diesel.

    So, since S. Korea has a population of 50.22 million, that would mean that for the low low cost of $3.52 trillion they could do that to the whole country.

    I think they need to hold a raffle or a bake sale or something.

    1. yonason

      “The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in South Korea was worth 1377.87 billion US dollars in 2015.”
      http://www.tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp

      It would cost a paltry 3x what they produce in a year.

      SUCH A DEAL!!!

    2. sod

      “So for a population of 178, that works out to $70,168.00 per person.”

      Your cost analysis is plain out stupid. You have to compare to the constant cost of diesel.

      we already know, that wind and solar is cheaper than diesel, up to a certain level of penetration.

      “So, since S. Korea has a population of 50.22 million, that would mean that for the low low cost of $3.52 trillion they could do that to the whole country. ”

      the next basic math error. No, it would not. On the main land, you would build much bigger wind turbines and you would use much less batteries, for a start.

      1. yonason

        I showed you my numbers, now you show me yours, i.e., put up or shut up.

        1. sod

          “I showed you my numbers, now you show me yours, i.e., put up or shut up.”

          please read the article:

          “There has also been a major boost in the number of tourists, which rose from 10,000 in 2008 and 40,000 in 2011 to 110,000 in 2015. ”

          so over 20 years we expect 2 million tourists and the cost of the project was 12 million. so that seems to make $6 per tourist. simple math, please correct my errors!

          1. Robert Folkerts

            Hey sod,

            Would this multitude of tourists be showing up on rowing boats or sail boats, or is it more likely their transport is fueled by by the “evil” Jet A 1 and diesel? I don’t doubt you have already made calculations for the co2 produced by these tourists escapades. Perhaps these tourists are somewhat counter productive in the greater scheme of things. Maybe they are ” just plain out stupid” A phrase sod is want to use.

          2. yonason

            RIIIIIGHT! 178 natives are going to provide services for 2 million tourists? Seriously? I doubt they can do it for 110,000 per year. If you go, pack your own lunch.

            Here’s what trip advisor writes about them – “A very small island worth traveling to for a few hours.”
            But don’t plan any extended stays, as you will note that “accommodations” is conspicuously absent from the list of services in this tourist info.
            http://www.jejuweekly.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=4016

            And as we know, this being an island, the tourists can get there either by swimming (not optimal) or they can take a ferry. Hmmm, let’s see, the last I heard was that most ferries run on diesel. Oops, there goes your carbon neutrality.

            Now, for 110,000 tourists per year, with 4 ferry trips a day that would work out to 75 tourists per ferry ride. I don’t know, but it seems like they are pushing the envelop already, if those are real numbers. And what if you miss the last one? Does it wait? Do you have to sleep in the street? I’m afraid something doesn’t add up here. But what it does tell me is that them EVER getting 2 million tourists in a year is a child’s fantasy.

          3. sod

            you can find the ferry schedule here:

            http://www.jejuweekly.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=2902

            and a report about tourists on the island here:

            http://www.bravoyourcity.com/story/biking-around-gapa-island

          4. yonason

            Fascinating.

            I see it doesn’t give ferry capacity for that one (same schedule as in the link I gave), but then they don’t need to carry that many there, because (from your second link):

            “With far less people taking the ferry over, it’s the perfect island to get away from the touristy crowds and enjoy some alone time, or couple time, with nature.”

            Yep, and it’s nice and “carbon neutral,” except for the ferry ride over, and for the 58% of the time they run the diesel generators.
            http://img.hani.co.kr/imgdb/resize/2016/0718/146871730238_20160718.JPG

            I hope you enjoy your trip there. Just go before your 2 million tourists come to watch the barley grow. Oh, the exciting time you will have.

          5. sod

            ““With far less people taking the ferry over, it’s the perfect island to get away from the touristy crowds and enjoy some alone time, or couple time, with nature.””

            300 people per day is not a crowd. So this phrase does not contradict the 100000 visitors per year.

            “I hope you enjoy your trip there. Just go before your 2 million tourists come to watch the barley grow.”

            i did just take the additional 100000 annual tourists from the original article and multiplied it with 20 (years. the lifetime of the infrastructur).

      2. Dave Ward

        “Your cost analysis is plain out stupid. You have to compare to the constant cost of diesel”

        I did:

        A US site gives a typical fuel consumption for a 230kW diesel generator running at 75% load as 12.5 US gallons/hr. That’s 45.4 litres. Multiply by 8760 and you get 397,000 litres per year (let’s call it 400,000). At current UK prices for “red” diesel that’s roughly £200,000 per year. The $12.49m invested is around £10 million, which would pay for 50 years worth of fuel! Even if you double the fuel cost, the payback time is still 25 years

        Before you bleat about ongoing maintenance costs for the existing generators, don’t forget your favourite turbines and solar panels will be needing needing replacement by then, particularly in a salt laden environment. AND….the batteries and inverters will be lucky to make 10 years, so don’t pretend that this system is going to be much cheaper than the present arrangement.

        1. sod

          “The $12.49m invested is around £10 million, which would pay for 50 years worth of fuel! Even if you double the fuel cost, the payback time is still 25 years”

          Thanks for doing the math. I would expect the major error to be price of diesel on the island (it has to be transported there).

          Your second error is the fact, that Korea is basically importing all diesel and is trying to get rid of this dependence. so the real value has to include the difference between imported diesel and construction and productions that can be done inside Korea.

          As a final point, we are looking at a experimental setup. This will not be cheaper than an old diesel generator. This is an attempt to give an option for 100% renewables. Adding just solar and wind up to a pretty high penetration (30%) on the other hand, will typically be.

          But as you see, even the experiment is paying out, as it is attracting a lot of tourists!

        2. yonason

          Nice analysis.

          Someone should point out to sod that the UK is also an island, and diesel must also be transported to it. (because their aging refineries can’t meet demand).

          Also, S.Korean diesel prices are 13% less that in the UK.
          http://www.mytravelcost.com/South-Korea/gas-prices/
          Perhaps that’s due to the fact that S.Korea refines enough for export in addition to their own use, though less will be exported the more internal usage grows.
          http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-diesel-demand-idUSKCN0VR0NB

          Just as they need diesel now.
          http://img.hani.co.kr/imgdb/resize/2016/0718/146871730238_20160718.JPG
          They’ll need it in the future.

          Finally, I guess sod has already forgotten how he was previously shown to be totally out to lunch about how flywheels work, and their connection to diesel generators (which must ALWAYS be ready the moment the wind dies down).
          http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/12/folly-all-of-europes-wind-power-capacity-only-could-steadily-provide-enough-electricity-for-tiny-belgium/comment-page-1/#comment-1119861

          http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/12/folly-all-of-europes-wind-power-capacity-only-could-steadily-provide-enough-electricity-for-tiny-belgium/comment-page-1/#comment-1119722

      3. Dave Ward

        “Your cost analysis is plain out stupid. You have to compare to the constant cost of diesel”

        I did:

        A US site gives a typical fuel consumption for a 230kW diesel generator running at 75% load as 12.5 US gallons/hr. That’s 45.4 litres. Multiply by 8760 and you get 397,000 litres per year (let’s call it 400,000). At current UK prices for “red” diesel that’s roughly £200,000 per year. The $12.49m invested is around £10 million, which would pay for 50 years worth of fuel! Even if you double the fuel cost, the payback time is still 25 years

        Before you bleat about ongoing maintenance costs for the existing generators, don’t forget your favourite turbines and solar panels will be needing needing replacement by then, particularly in a salt laden environment. AND….the batteries and inverters will be lucky to make 10 years, so don’t pretend that this system is going to be much cheaper than the present arrangement.

        1. Dave Ward

          Sorry for the double post – the first one just vanished when I hit the “Post Comment” button. Pierre – please delete one of them.

          1. yonason

            They almost always get posted. When that happens, I just save a copy in case it doesn’t. That’s rare, but it does happen.

      4. AndyG55

        Poor sop,

        You are lost for an intelligent response, I see.

        Nothing unusual about that.

  7. Would Trump Be Better On The Environment Than Hillary? » Pirate's Cove

    […] Food for thought(?) from Pierre Gosselin at No Tricks Zone […]

  8. Francis Mcclarin

    If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions. Comments made by presidential candidate Donald Trump today that if abortion were outlawed there would have to be some form of punishment for women seeking an abortion are troubling. Trump’s suggestion that he would support punishing women seeking abortions because there are ‘conservative Republicans’ advocating such a policy shows Mr. Trump is ill informed in this vital issue.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close