Talk:Renewable energy: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>John Foster
(New page: {{subpages}})
imported>Milton Beychok
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
==Political windpower?==
Deserving of special mention? It's certainly renewable. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg-4ATrE8n0 Tapped in WC's] all around Britain. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
== Rationale for my changes of a few sentences ==
John, I replaced this sentence:
:Climate-disrupting [[fossil fuels]] are being replaced by clean, climate-stabilizing, non-depletable sources of energy
with this one:
:The fuels that produce the most [[emission]]s of greenhouse gas are fossil fuels and they can be replaced by non-depletable sources of energy that produce much lower emissions of greenhouse gases:
because your sentence seemingly states as proven fact that fossil fuels are per se "dirty" "climate-disrupting fuels" and there is considerable, significant disagreement about global warming and climate disrupting. Also, in many countries, fossils are really not significantly "being replaced" ... for example, China, the United States and many others. The sentence I provided pretty much says the same thing as yours, but is a bit more "neutral" and avoids getting into an unproductive debate about global warming advocates and skeptics. It is a fact, which no one can dispute, that burning fossil fuels produces more greenhouse gases than solar, hydro, geothermal, biomass or biofuels.
I also removed this part of another sentence:
:and minimises significant, irreversible climate change impact.
for pretty much the same reason ... in that it assumes that there will be significant climate change impact whereas, again, there is considerable, significant disagreement about global warming and climate disrupting.
CZ believes strongly that articles must be neutral. If you will read the CZ article on [[global warming]], you will find that it includes a rather full discussion of the skepticism about global warming as shared by a significant number of scientists.
I agree with you that renewable energy must be pursued and must lower our dependence on fossil fuels ... and I don't think that my change of two sentences changes the thrust of this article. Regard, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 06:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:56, 13 May 2010

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Energy derived from natural processes that are regularly replenished and includes solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, geothermal power, bioenergy, and biofuels. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Engineering, Politics and Earth Sciences [Categories OK]
 Subgroup category:  Energy policy
 Talk Archive 1  English language variant American English

Political windpower?

Deserving of special mention? It's certainly renewable. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Tapped in WC's all around Britain. Chris Day 04:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for my changes of a few sentences

John, I replaced this sentence:

Climate-disrupting fossil fuels are being replaced by clean, climate-stabilizing, non-depletable sources of energy

with this one:

The fuels that produce the most emissions of greenhouse gas are fossil fuels and they can be replaced by non-depletable sources of energy that produce much lower emissions of greenhouse gases:

because your sentence seemingly states as proven fact that fossil fuels are per se "dirty" "climate-disrupting fuels" and there is considerable, significant disagreement about global warming and climate disrupting. Also, in many countries, fossils are really not significantly "being replaced" ... for example, China, the United States and many others. The sentence I provided pretty much says the same thing as yours, but is a bit more "neutral" and avoids getting into an unproductive debate about global warming advocates and skeptics. It is a fact, which no one can dispute, that burning fossil fuels produces more greenhouse gases than solar, hydro, geothermal, biomass or biofuels.

I also removed this part of another sentence:

and minimises significant, irreversible climate change impact.

for pretty much the same reason ... in that it assumes that there will be significant climate change impact whereas, again, there is considerable, significant disagreement about global warming and climate disrupting.

CZ believes strongly that articles must be neutral. If you will read the CZ article on global warming, you will find that it includes a rather full discussion of the skepticism about global warming as shared by a significant number of scientists.

I agree with you that renewable energy must be pursued and must lower our dependence on fossil fuels ... and I don't think that my change of two sentences changes the thrust of this article. Regard, Milton Beychok 06:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)