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
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- Tel on COP29 Preview
- Robertvd on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- GW on A Giant Eyesore
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- czechlist on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- arn on COP29 Preview
- arn on COP29 Preview
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.