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
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
Recent Comments
- spren on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- spren on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- spren on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- spren on Extreme Weather
- spren on Cheering Crowds
- arn on Cheering Crowds
- Gordon Vigurs on Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Gordon Vigurs on Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Gordon Vigurs on Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Disillusioned on “Earlier Than Usual”
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.