Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumEnvironmental Doublespeak Is Now So Common That One Doesn't Even Notice.
The paper to which I will refer is this one:
Ecological Impacts of Deep-Sea Mining Waste on Marine Algae and Copepod Tigriopus californicus Catherine Thomson, Alastair J. M. Lough, Jean Moorkens, Te Liu, Shelby A. Gunnells, Jessica N. Fitzsimmons, Zvi Steiner, Ann G. Dunlea, Clare Woulds, William B. Homoky, Mengjiao Wang, Qiao-Guo Tan, and Fengjie Liu Environmental Science & Technology 2025 59 (38), 20190-20200.
The paper is open access; anyone can read it in full. It states that some algae species are stimulated by mine waste, perhaps by increased access to physiological essential metals; copepods, by contrast are inhibited in growth.
That is not my point. My point has to do with the doublespeak in the opening paragraphs, which has now become so ordinary that one doesn't even notice it, sort of like reciting the Lord's Prayer in a church service, where the text is so stripped of meaning, inasmuch to obscure that it contains statements that are quite simply nonsensical.
The text in question, from the opening paragraph:
I have bolded the words which, on inspection, deserve being questioned given the relationship with one another.
How is that a form of energy that requires so much mining as to deplete terrestrial reserves is "renewable?"
How is that it is "green?"
Tearing up the ocean floor with heavy machinery, strip mining it - inevitably powered with fossil fuels despite all the nonsensical crap handed out by hydrogen and battery morons - then, after chemical processing with aggressive chemicals, (acids, caustics, and extractants) - and then dumping mine tailings at sea is decidedly not "green," nor is it "renewable."
This is a huge problem; even our language is polluted by this airhead nonsense.
If one really wants "green energy," the most important features would be energy to mass ratios, and of course, land and sea surface use.
Have a nice weekend.