Is there a ‘we’ in climate change? Or just an ‘I’?
Al Gore in a new article claims that controlling climate change is a collective struggle for Americans. Instead, it may be an individual opportunity for entrepreneurs.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- Demise Of The Great Barrier Reef
- Net Zero In China
- Make America Healthy Again
- Nobel Prophecy Update
- Grok Defending Climategate
- It Is Big Oil’s Fault
- Creative Marketing
- No Emergency Or Injunction
- The Perfect Car
- “usually the case”
- Same Old Democrats
- Record Arctic Ice Growth
- Climate Change, Income Inequality And Racism
- The New Kind Of Green
- The Origins Of Modern Climate Science
- If An Academic Said It, It Must Be True
- Record Snow Cover
- Stopping Climate Misinformation
- Arctic Ice Free In Two Years
- “Decades Of Scientific Research”
- The Atlantic : Tesla Bombings Not Politics Or Terrorism
- Tough Times For Eco-Terrorists
- EV Mandates
- “Oswald is a patsy. They set him up”
Recent Comments
- David M Kitting on Nobel Prophecy Update
- Bob G on Demise Of The Great Barrier Reef
- Bob G on On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- Francis Barnett on On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- Scott Allen on On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- Tel on Make America Healthy Again
- arn on Net Zero In China
- william on Net Zero In China
- william on Net Zero In China
- william on Net Zero In China
Sorry, but “sex poodle” and “shakra” just do not go together. Now sex deviant does go with “shakra”.
Would Mr. Nobel Sex Poodle be so kind as to list the personal sacrifices he has made or is willing to make in the name of saving the planet? So far, all he has done is get filthy rich as he preaches about “we” doing the all the sacrificing.
Well, he did nobly pass up on the opportunity to rule us pathetic plebes. Not like we deserved him, anyway.
I found this at CSM regarding renewable energy:
Vaclav Smil, an energy scientist at the University of Manitoba, explains that renewable energy sources will create energy sprawl because they require more land area to produce than fossil fuels do. All of the oil wells, strip mines, refineries, and pipelines needed to extract fossil fuels worldwide cover an area the size of Belgium, says Smil. That sounds big until you consider the alternative. Electricity-producing solar cells provide about a tenth as much energy per acre as fossil fuel extraction does. Wind farms produce 1/30th to 1/100th the energy per acre. And biofuels like corn ethanol fare even worse: from 1/300th to 1/1000th the energy per acre. Even if you use the entire US corn crop for ethanol, declares Smil, “you would supply 13 percent of [US] gasoline.”
It would take an areas the size of the US and India combined to provide energy from renewable and biofuels. And here I thought it was just more environmentally destructive than fossil fuels.
GG, Cornell did a study a few years ago that it would take all of the land, swamps and mountain tops, in the U.S. to supply us with 85% of the ethanol we need………..
You did not end the sentence! Let me help! *******to destroy all of our internal combustion engines. I have equipment with small engines and the ethanol in gas eats the carburetor and fuel lines meaning shorter life cycles for those. There are additives I use and they help a bit.
I am a firm believer that Ethanol is more harmful to the environment than oil refined into gas.
By “collective” AlGore means that he’ll be collecting all of your money.