Wind and solar are not cheaper everywhere and at all times, so some level of support is still helpful if you care about the speed of transition. One thing is for sure though: they won't still be sucking the subsidy teat 100 years after commercialisation like oil, gas and coal.
Sad to see Michael still peddling *it is already cheaper" - great, but then there is no provlem, everyone will switch and we can even save the $5 trillion in solar and wind subsidies to 2040 Of course, it shows is that we're still nowhere near, and hence we need R&D investmenthttps://twitter.com/MLiebreich/status/1304146388356390914 …
-
-
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Lomborg insists on CO2 as the driver of climate change even though thoroughly discredited by geology & the rock record of past climates. We will never make environmental, economic, or social progress while the fallacy of CO2 involvement blocks the path. CO2 is a total red herringpic.twitter.com/orWoofdjn2
-
If we illuminate CO2 from the climate debate we also eliminate the need for: extremely expensive wasteful CO2 mitigation or sesqestration, not burning or mining fossil fuels, renewable energy, wind farms, solar energy, & electric vehicles. CO2 is a fertiliser not a pollutant.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
And if you were given $1 Trillion on the day Christ was born and told to spend it at a rate of $1 Million every single day, you would still today have 721 years to spend what’s left at the same rate. Can we say insanity?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Well, it (wind, solar) either is cheaper or it isn't. Is Michael ignoring the subsidized capital cost is Bjorn excluding, let's see, externality such as fossil fuel cleanup costs.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.