In many 1st world countries, we are spending a lot to "save the Earth". Are we getting anything except "good feelings"?
The MSmockingbirdM always touts the savings, but never goes into detail about the costs. And so very little is published with a 10 year study with all the numbers. And, if i were a conspiracy theorist, i would say that was because almost none of them actually break even. Not in terms of money, nor in terms of pollution.
We are paying a lot for nothing. And, in some cases, a net negative.
Paying for Earth destruction? Could that be a thing, when the goal is saving the Earth?
Well, it is a thing, and seems to be specifically designed as such.
Transportation
Everyone in Europe laughs at America for its lack of trains, but are trains on railroads actually more efficient?
Everyone is swarming to buy an electric car, except those who have already purchased an electric car, most will "definitely buy an ICE next time".
Musky wanted to build electric big rigs, forgetting how much that cost in weight.
In transportation, we haven't even left the dark ages, despite the insane amount of money we have thrown at it.
Currently, there is only one segment of the population that can get a net savings on an EV. Old people who only use the car to run to the grocery store who live in a city with a moderate climate.
If you have to drive long distances, an EV will destroy your peace
If you live in a cold climate, your batteries will not charge/hold a charge
If you aren't experiencing the stop & go traffic of a city, you aren't saving energy by having an EV
If your life doesn't allow you the luxury of slow charging your EV and days you are not using it
Then the EV is not saving the world, it is costing it.
Your standard Tesla battery has made more pollution in its creation, than an ICE engine will create its entire life. And the pollution difference from an ICE to a coal burning, electric power plant + line loss + battery charging loss is almost insignificant.
If we were actually interested in saving the planet, we would ride electric bicycles. It is far more efficient to run an electric bicycle, then to drive a car alone. Even a family of four, it is less costly to run four electric bicycles, than to drive the car.
But what about trains? Well, most of the savings of a train is we spend a LOT of time/money to lay down the tracks as level as possible. Else the amount of energy used in a train vs many cars is not that much difference. And trains only really take people. Not people and stuff.
The cost savings in the future will actually be people living in small communities. Not having to drive to work. Not having to drive to the stores. Very concentrated delivery points.
Windmills
Windmills, on the whole, are so bad that conspiracy theorist are starting to believe that they are put in certain places to move the air.
As a single person/family, adding a windmill to your electric generation system is a great idea. Because the commercial ones are cheap, small, easy to set up. They provide energy when the solar panels do not. Windy/stormy/dark days. And the small systems are cheap enough you can almost ignore the cost.
The large windmills they are putting up all over, rarely ever pay for themselves. It costs so much to make them, which is an indicator of energy usage. And we rarely get more energy out of them, then we put into them.
Although putting them out at sea gives more regular windflow, maintaining the electrical cables really makes them costly. Not to mention the whales running into those undersea columns
CO2 makes the plants grow
"Scientists" were paid to tell everyone that it is CO2 that is causing global warming. Even though humans and their cars are only a tiny percentage of CO2 emissions.
Actually looking at the charts that… AL GORE… showed us, briefly, actually show that CO2 is a following indicator. Not a cause.
Higher levels of CO2 actually cause more plant growth, which absorbs more sun's rays before heating the ground, and thus, is actually cooling.
And, it actually looks like we NEEED more CO2 in the atmosphere to support a healthy amount of plant life. Compared to previous times, the Earth is really low on CO2 right now.
The reason we are talking about CO2 is that actual pollution is hard to measure. CO2 can be assumed from your electric bill. No bureaucrats have to actually go to your site and take readings, or look at what is being done.
We could all be using geothermal energy to produce electricity, but govern-cement has made that almost impossible to research or enact. Even though it would be as easy as drilling an oil well. (Which we allow in all kinds of places.)
The "Green Energy Revolution" is just to get people to invest in boondoggles. To cost that tax payers as much money while not giving them anything real.
We are not saving the planet. All the paths to saving the planet are blocked by bureaucracy and lies. We honestly have people paying money to hurt the planet. (think of plastic recycling.)
And, of all the areas of research, why isn't science all over this? We should have numbers showing what we spent and what we saved. But all i have seen is more schemes to change the temperature readings. Like going from weather stations in the country, on a mountain somewhere to a weather station at a busy airport surrounded by tarmac.
Come on guys, this is for the planet! You know, the place where we all live? Lies will only get us killed.
The Green Revolution was started in lies, and continues in lies.