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!
Recent Comments
saveenergy on 65 Years Of Progress! Jeff L. on Analyzing The Western Water Cr… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Approaching 100% I… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Set Another Spring… gelcarrion0t on New Visitech Features saveenergy on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast gelcarrion0t on Seventeen Years Of Fun Barbara Stockwell on Nuclear Safety In The US
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.