But this is demonstrably untrue.

Burning wood is probably the most environmentally-unfriendly source used anywhere. Hydro dams often wreak massive damage. Using food for fuel leads to increased starvation and slash-and-burn alternatives. Intermittent fuel sources solve nothing and need non-renewable fuels for back-up.

What source/authority has convinced you that renewable fuels are benign? What is the argument? Perhaps “renewable” is just a nice-sounding word?

How do the Greenies bump start an Electric Car?

For example; the Three Gorges Dam project in China required the relocation of nearly 1.3 million Chinese citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam

I was just thinking about that….aren’t our banknotes made out of plastic…..which is made from oil……

Of course not a single one of those fools bothered to find out there is fucken great mountain between Manapouri and Deep Cove.

“….many hydro dams have caused substantial eco damage….”

Fucken Crap!

Well, no… it’s not “fucken crap”…. you can’t dam a river without obstructing the migrations of all sorts of acquatic species, and that would fit most definitions of “eco damage.”

So it would be a lot more sensible to discuss whether that is REALLY a problem worth worrying about, rather than trading meaningless BS slogans “ZOMFG dams cause ECO DAMAGE!!!” versus “Oh no they don’t that’s FUCKEN CRAP!” etc.

PS:

Fucken Crap!

What animals were wiped out, nearly wiped out, or killed in their 10′s, 100′s, 1000′s when all the hydro dams were built in the South Island?…….Fucken none!

Why are postcards of the hydrolakes in the South Island the biggest selling postcards in NZ?

Why do tourists take photos of the lakes?

The largely ignored economic impact of environmental, social and cultural objectives has had “a good run” … the cost of which has been levels of unsustainable Council debt and unaffordable Council services.

Now! … the new LG Act’s “cost-effectiveness” objective replaces the 4 well beings … and about time. An ageing poulation alone justifies a long overdue focus on economics-costs.

I’m afraid you have got the line about wind turbines wrong. Either that or add another one.

You can’t see grassy sheep country on the horizon because having weed infested, otherwise unused DOC land in Central Otago is too important.

That link was good.

Here’s Ray Stephens singing about how O’bama bails the Americans out-

You can’t build wind turbines – people’s right to see bare grassy sheep country on the horizon is too important.

Some overlap between nimbys and environmentalists does occur (cf. David Bellamy et al…)

Why is that, DPF? Why are you not a personal fan of the most affordable secure supply of energy available from time to time?

Renewable energy has exacted a terrible toll on the lives of millions who cook with charcoal and dung – and further millions whose poverty has been seriously exacerbated by the use of food for motor fuel. The current major (by a factor of 10) global renewable source comes from burning trees, and many hydro dams have caused substantial eco damage. Solar and wind are expensive, have huge footprints and are intermittent.

So why favour renewable over non-renewable? Is it because you believe the “peak oil” fantasy?

[DPF: I think utilising renewable sources is sensible and better for the environment. However I am not an absolutist. The cost need to be comparable to non-renewable]

Isn’t Green Peace against dams too?

When was the last time we built a dam actually?

They should start with their chairs!

That will require those printing presses to really be working overtime.

But. But. But just think of the multiplier factor of all that printed money!!

Living the Keynesian dream… This is quite old and has circulated quite a bit (I like how this has an equally true and amusing alternative view on how the story would unfold) but is worth retelling given that Russel Norman refuses to step back from the insanity of printing money

How the European bailout really works