Hey, look, it's Lomborg dishonestly equivocating on energy vs. electricity for the millionth time! Great Job, Bjorn. What a meaningful life you're leading.https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/929715302509801472 …
-
The question is why do you keep making this same point over and over again. Once upon a time electric lighting was only present in less than 1% of all homes. Candles and gas were everywhere. But it didn’t mean electricity was doomed to be peripheral for all time.
Because most people believe that solar and wind is huge (and are led to believe so). Reality is that renewable's small percentage could stay small for very long – or forever http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/scientificamerican0114-521.pdf …pic.twitter.com/bAFC6Lub2D
-
-
Continuing to focus on total energy generation, which includes waste energy and sectors that RE isn't competing for, is dishonest. Proper context: IEA says 23% of power generation comes from renewables today, expects 37% by 2040.
-
CO₂ comes from entire energy sector, hence I make the more relevant comparison. But unlike you, I would never call your choice dishonest. Yours is just less relevant for the climate conversation
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
I've no idea what "most people" think about this topic. And I don't think you do either. I suspect the reality is that "most people" don't think about the topic at all. You are turning into a latter day Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills …
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.