Is New Green Deal feasible or a fiasco

    Over the past 50 years dire and disturbing reports about famine, fire, storm, and floods, all allegedly linked to climate change have made headlines. Studies rejecting such claims are conveniently ignored while well-read publications provoke fear and paranoia especially among young people.


    In September 2019, Greta Thunberg, a teenager from Sweden, was publicly shaming elites at the United Nations for not doing more to address climate change issues. In the same time interval 500 scientists and prominent professionals in climate sciences sent a letter to the head of the United Nations warning against relying on many of the most popular climate models calling them “unfit for their purpose.” The signers declared that “There is no climate emergency and thus no cause for panic.”
    Yet, President Biden thought otherwise. According to his website.
    “The transition to green energy sources like wind and solar is necessary to stop the existential threat of climate change.” In regard to solar energy, a report based on research using the Air Force Base solar farm as a model revealed that to generate the energy needed to power the USA each year would require completely blanketing 57,048 miles of land (an area equivalent to the state of New York and Vermont) with 18.8 billion solar panels. These have a life span of only 30 years. Therefore after every three decades the problem becomes how to dispose of tons of waste containing lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals. The scenario for wind turbine farms is not much different.
    To say nothing of the fact that the wind does not always blow nor does the sun always shine or that snow or dust can render solar panels ineffective, factor in the expense of millions of dollars and the loss of habitat for numerous plant and animal species. Then ask yourself, “Is this a reasonable exchange for what has been a relatively environmentally safe production of fossil fuels in the USA?”
Loretta Sellers
Cuba