What to do about global warming

[petros]

Greenhouse Gas does not exist.

Tell that to a Venetian shapeshifting alien.

 

[darkbeaver]

Tell that to a Venetian shapeshifting alien.

There is no greenhouse effect on that planet. You are just perpetuating long debunked bad science that was thoroughly trashed decades ago.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090729venus.htm

 

[Tonington]

Greenhouse Gas does not exist. A perfect example of systemic rubbish flogged as environmental responsibility.

Greenhouse gases were discovered before there even was widespread environmental awareness.

They certainly do exist.

YouTube - Greenhouse effect (in a bottle) explained

YouTube - Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2

 

[AnnaG]

Greenhouse Gas does not exist.

That is straight crap.

A perfect example of systemic rubbish flogged as environmental responsibility. Real analysis done on supporting speculative science can not yield factual results.
May 29

As I said previously, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, let along a greenhouse gas effect

NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?
​

As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:
"During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick....in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation..."

Thus, the ‘blackbody approximations' were proven to be as useful as a chocolate space helmet; the guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was long ago debunked. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann's numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research; because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate. Source
​

Yeah, and

NASA Gagging Policy: Climate Scientist Quit over Controversy

but these people are not saying there is no such thing as GHGs. They are saying the GHG theory is doubtable.
If I were you, beaver, I'd give up spinning. You aren't any good at it.

 

[darkbeaver]

Greenhouse gases were discovered before there even was widespread environmental awareness.

They certainly do exist.

YouTube - Greenhouse effect (in a bottle) explained

YouTube - Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2

I'll go slowly so you catch my drift, we aren't in a bottle we are in an open field, there is no damn greenhouse to have an effect in regardless of any ad hoc gas. My ass absorbs infrared radiation, rocks absorb infrared radiation, chickens rabbits fishsticks pumpkins all absorb infrared radiation, why would we be shocked and surprized that gas absorbs infrared radiation?

 

[AnnaG]

I'll go slowly so you catch my drift, we aren't in a bottle we are in an open field, there is no damn greenhouse to have an effect in regardless of any ad hoc gas. My ass absorbs infrared radiation, rocks absorb infrared radiation, chickens rabbits fishsticks pumpkins all absorb infrared radiation, why would we be shocked and surprized that gas absorbs infrared radiation?

:roll: That's your religion and you're sticking to it, right? lmao
Effectively we are in a closed system. http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/types_of_systems.html

 

[Tonington]

I'll go slowly so you catch my drift, we aren't in a bottle we are in an open field, there is no damn greenhouse to have an effect in regardless of any ad hoc gas.

The bottle is not an entirely closed system, just as Earth is not. You'll note that the source of heat, the Sun or the lamps, were not in the bottle...

The analogy of a greenhouse is a very poor one. Greenhouses warm because they block convection. Greenhouse gases warm because they make the atmosphere opaque to infrared radiation. The only similarity is that a greenhouse, and greenhouse gases allow the incoming solar to pass through first. Nobody is really sure who coined the term.

My ass absorbs infrared radiation, rocks absorb infrared radiation, chickens rabbits fishsticks pumpkins all absorb infrared radiation, why would we be shocked and surprized that gas absorbs infrared radiation?

I'm not surprised, but you seem positively incredulous about the effects of a greenhouse gas, yet here you are affirming that they do exactly what I just explained. The only thing you've left out is that the excited molecules will re-emit the radiation to go back to the rest state.

 

[Tonington]

Also, why do they hold up professional contrarians like Lomborg in such high regard.

They like Lomborgs plan because it involves very little difficulty. They enjoy his view because they live in a fairy-tale world.

Lomborg's plan boils down to this:

 

[darkbeaver]

Tonington;1291828]The bottle is not an entirely closed system, just as Earth is not. You'll note that the source of heat, the Sun or the lamps, were not in the bottle...

So do you in fact know what the earth is partially enclosed by?

The analogy of a greenhouse is a very poor one. Greenhouses warm because they block convection. Greenhouse gases warm because they make the atmosphere opaque to infrared radiation. The only similarity is that a greenhouse, and greenhouse gases allow the incoming solar to pass through first. Nobody is really sure who coined the term.

<1905 “ the effect comes on so quickly that it must chiefly be due to ‘the greenhouse effect,’ the imprisonment of the reflected dark-heat rays . . .”—Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Vol. 76, No. 511, 2 September, page 409>

I'm not surprised, but you seem positively incredulous about the effects of a greenhouse gas, yet here you are affirming that they do exactly what I just explained. The only thing you've left out is that the excited molecules will re-emit the radiation to go back to the rest state.

The respected German engineer, with 130 other sceptic German scientists, co-signed the Open Letter of protest to German Chancellor Angela Merkel (2009). Among other things, these sceptics stated that a 'Growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role' in Earth’s climate.’
The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures and also that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

Read more at Suite101: Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics


​

Among a steady groundswell of scientists challenging the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming, comes 'Induced Emission and Heat Stored by Air, Water and Dry Clay Soil' by Professor Nasif Nahle.
Oceans Drive Climate, Not Trace Gasses

The internationally-acclaimed professor, from Monterrey, Mexico, exposes a weakness of the greenhouse gas theory for its failure to consider that other processes are important in the atmospheric radiative heat transfer event. A former Harvard and UCLA graduate with degrees in science and mathematics, Nahle confidently states, "I demonstrate that the climate of Earth is driven by the oceans, the ground surface and the subsurface materials of the ground."
A discovery in 2008 that the Earth has a second inner core re-inforces Nahle's argument for a subsurface heating effect

Read more at Suite101: The Laws of Physics Ably Defeat the Global Warming Theory The Laws of Physics Ably Defeat the Global Warming Theory

Warmists Miscalculate Heat

Supporters of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) still adhere to the theory that 50% of the energy absorbed by atmospheric gases (especially carbon dioxide) is re-emitted back towards Earth’s surface, heating it up.
Nahle, whose areas of expertise ranges from Physics to Biology, Ecology, Bioeconomy and Biophysics, attacks this flawed assumption, “The problem with the AGW idea is that its proponents think that the Earth is isolated and that the heat engine only works on the surface of the ground.”

Read more at Suite101: The Laws of Physics Ably Defeat the Global Warming Theory The Laws of Physics Ably Defeat the Global Warming Theory
​

 

[taxslave]

Since the world is overpopulated anyway we could start by eliminating Suzuki and all his hangers on.

 

[L Gilbert]

So do you in fact know what the earth is partially enclosed by?

I guess you missed Anna's post. http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritt...f_systems.html

<1905 “ the effect comes on so quickly that it must chiefly be due to ‘the greenhouse effect,’ the imprisonment of the reflected dark-heat rays . . .”—Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Vol. 76, No. 511, 2 September, page 409>

The respected German engineer, with 130 other sceptic German scientists, co-signed the Open Letter of protest to German Chancellor Angela Merkel (2009). Among other things, these sceptics stated that a 'Growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role' in Earth’s climate.’
The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures and also that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

Read more at Suite101: Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
​

This stuff is what Thieme and co. is referring to:
On the Phenomenon of Atmospheric Backradiation

So, everything needs to be recalculated and verified again. In the meantime, deniers will take this as an excuse to keep polluting like the morons they are in spite of the fact that a lot of the stuff we let loose in the atmosphere obviously has other detrimental effects. IOW, so CO² may not have very much effect on global warming. The increasing concentrations of it have other effects that degrade life on Earth. And that's not even mentioning the other crap that we emit.
​

Since the world is overpopulated anyway we could start by eliminating Suzuki and all his hangers on.

Evicting the worst polluters in general would be much better.

 

[petros]

Since the world is overpopulated anyway we could start by eliminating Suzuki and all his hangers on.

The world is not overpopulated. Not by a long shot.

Stop and think for a minute: is this green or greenocidal thinking?

 

[L Gilbert]

The world is not overpopulated. Not by a long shot.

It's overpopulated considering what the current population does to the planet.
It's quite simple really, the more humans there are the fewer other forms of life there is. The more humans there are the more room humans need, the more fresh water humans need, and so on.

Stop and think for a minute: is this green or greenocidal thinking?

Neither; it's logic.

 

[ironsides]

You're not remembering right. Carbon dioxide does not reflect or even interact with the incoming solar radiation. It's the solar energy that is reflected from Earth's surfaces, and radiated back by warmed surfaces which interacts with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It's because the wavelength of these returning energies (photons) causes greenhouse gases to resonate. The bonds between the atoms vibrate, rotate, and bend, and this excites the molecule to a higher energy state.

The blue ocean absorbs heat, the ice caps reflect it. As for Carbon dioxide: Carbon dioxide is the building block for all plant growth. However, too much in the atmosphere is believed to be the leading cause of global warming. Looking at samples of ice dating back 160,000 years gives us some clues that CO2 and world temperature are connected.

Global Warming

 

[L Gilbert]

The blue ocean absorbs heat, the ice caps reflect it. As for Carbon dioxide:Carbon dioxide is the building block for all plant growth. However, too much in the atmosphere is believed to be the leading cause of global warming. Looking at samples of ice dating back 160,000 years gives us some clues that CO2 and world temperature are connected.

Global Warming

I guess you missed the last few links.

 

[Liberalman]

We're told global warming is a serious problem caused by our CO2 emissions, that action must be taken immediately to reduce our emissions by 80%, and that we have 10 years. (Mind you, we've been told that for more than 20 years now, making it the longest decade in the history of time.)

So how have all those efforts to cut emissions worked so far, what are the actual results of all those $billions spent on "saving the planet"? What I've seen thus far is more in the line of wealth redistribution rather than emission reductions.

Feel free to suggest any method by which governments, corporations, organizations and individuals can achieve that goal.

Please do not use this thread to argue for or against AGW, or whether the globe is warming or cooling, we have enough threads for that already.

global warming does that mean no more winter coats?

 

[Extrafire]

I apologize for taking so long to get back but I've been very busy.

Now where was I? Oh yes...

You haven't provided proof of that.

I've demonstrated why it can't.

So then you agree that Lomborg is using a crystal ball...

His position is reliant on those breakthroughs. They are rare. We're still using technology older than turn of the century.

No I don't. Lomborgs position is to not waste time and resources on actions we know won't work and focus on developing tech that will. Yes his position is reliant on those breakthroughs, but then anyone who believes in dangerous AGW also relies on those breakthroughs because we all know they're the only things that can accomplish what's required. Even your report relies on those breakthroughs. If you've noticed, they only expect the wedges to stabilize the CO2 levels within 50 years which is the first part of their plan. The second part requires/expects new technology to solve the problem. Part II is the same as Lomborg.

Not the question. The question was to establish the likelihood of waiting for breakthroughs. If you can't predict them, how can your position be feasible to wait for them?

You don't wait for them, you work for them. What else you gonna do, waste money on stuff you know won't work just to be seen to be doing something? The effect of that on AGW would be...nothing, just the same as doing nothing, except much more costly.

No, you didn't even respond to all of the stuff in the report. I was simply adding that the report leaves out other candidates. If you have nothing to say about that, then so be it...

I said earlier that I responded to points where I saw a problem. You didn't get the inference? Not very perceptive of you. OK, I'll spell it out; There are things in the report that I believe would work they way they want. So why waste space in an already overlarge post to say that each and every time?

However, you suggestion that the report leaves out other candidates still seems to me that you expect me to comment on unknowns, or else you're basing your expectations of success on complete unknowns, which is far less reasonable than Lomborg.

So calling it the challenge of our times isn't big enough for you ehh? How alarmist.

That's just hyperbole. They're avoiding talking about what would have to be done to reduce emissions as much as they claim is necessary. Calling it the challenge of our times and then telling us to save the planet by using curly light bulbs and taking transit etc. is the height of irresponsibility if AGW is a real threat as they claim.

Ton has a good point, reducing to a number is not the objective anyway.
But either way, EF seems to think we need to come up with one single huge panacea rather than seeing what we can do in the many levels we've been polluting at to reach the objective.

Not at all Anna. All I'm saying is you don't waste time and resources on stuff that doesn't accomplish anything. You focus on what works and finding new stuff that will work. It doesn't have to be one single huge panacea, it likely won't be. It would likely be a series of small breakthroughs in a number of fields. Those added up are what turn into a huge breakthrough.

All these excuses that it'll be economically unfeasible and that everything is naturally cyclical is just that, feeble excuses for not making an effort.

Again, not at all. The excuse (claim) that everything is naturally cyclical is correct but it doesn't belong here. This thread is about what to do about AGW, not whether it's real.

And if you ignore economic feasibility you're doomed to failure. That must be taken into consideration, just as human nature must.

All the people of the world could be walking or on bikes but nothing would change until we stop buying so much plastic crap and start eating locally grown organic foods.

Plastic is made from oil but I don't recall it was ever cited as a cause of AGW.

AS for locally grown foods, a study in Britain showed that green beans flown from Africa have a lower carbon footprint than locally grown. The reason being volume. Smaller local growers make many trips to deliver goods to markets while a whole jumbo jet full at once results in less CO2 emitted per bean. You gotta be careful about these proposed solutions. For example the US and Canada both have mandated 5% alcohol in our gas in the near future. But alcohol takes more energy to produce than it contains resulting in an increase in emissions. One more example of a "solution" that won't work.

I didn't read the entire thread, but people say that a car wastes gas when it is idling. That's why municipalities tell us to turn off our cars when idling for more than a minute.

Well, how about these ideas...

1. Reduce the number of traffic lights instead of putting up more.
2. Implement green flow where ever possible for existing traffic lights.
3. Restrict road construction to off peak hours (ie. not during rush hour)
4. Eliminate bottlenecks (ie. 4 lanes merging into 1).

Of course, all these ideas above would cost the government money...

The idea is to keep the flow of traffic moving.. not idling. Whether it is above, at, or below the speed limit is irrelevant.

I think you should go back and read the whole thread. We're talking about how to reduce world CO2 emissions by 80%. In Canada, that's the equivalent to shutting down all industry, agriculture and transportation. You aren't thinking on anywhere near a big enough scale.

I'd say that should pretty much kill Extra's posts about "heavily subsidised" alternative energy.

Not at all. When it costs up to $800,000 subsidy for every "green" job it's just not viable on its own. With the economic crash the Spanish government is in deep do-do and as a restraint initiative, apparently cut off subsidies to "green" industry and they collapsed.

What that graph also doesn't tell you is how much energy is produced by those different sources. What's the amount of energy produced for each of them, for the money?

Fossil fuels provide us with reliable, cheap, dense and abundant energy. The other sources can't do that except for hydroelectricity. (Is that what's meant by "traditional renewables"?)

Moreover, they show corn ethanol as climate protecting. It isn't. Corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than it contains, thereby increasing emissions. They'd produce less CO2 by just burning fossil fuels instead.

I see he hasn't bothered to refute Anna's comment on trapping carbon as well as cutting back, also.

I commented on those topics in response to someone else, which is why I didn't bother repeating it to her.

I think the incentive to develop better energies will eventually overshadow the stupidity of burning carbon fuels. Hopefully sooner than later and regardless of whether some people think the globe is cooling or not.

I can only assume from that, you don't burn fossil fuels at all. How do you heat your house? What do you use for transportation? Just curious.

More on subsidies, from the IEA:

The IEA analysis has revealed that fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $557 billion in 2008. This represents a big increase from $342 billion in 2007.

Half of a trillion dollars...if it's possible, imagine what could be done with half a trillion dollars every year spent on modernizing energy production, distribution, consumption, and conservation.

That money breaks down as follows:

1. Oil, $312 billion
2. Natural Gas, $204 billion
3. Coal, $40 billion

What's the global tally for those "massive" renewable energy subsidies?

​

The country with the highest subsidies in 2008 was Iran at $101 billion, or around a third of the country’s annual central budget.

Uh-huh. Iran, which is exempt from any CO2 restrictions and doesn't bother with green industries. What are the fossil fuel subsidies in those countries which are also subsidizing developement of "green" industry? That info might actually be rellevant.

We are not going to save this planet: Jesus is coming to burn the whole world up and burn up the heavens also.

Oh get off it. Take your soapbox to a religion thread.

 

[AnnaG]

Not at all Anna. All I'm saying is you don't waste time and resources on stuff that doesn't accomplish anything. You focus on what works and finding new stuff that will work. It doesn't have to be one single huge panacea, it likely won't be. It would likely be a series of small breakthroughs in a number of fields. Those added up are what turn into a huge breakthrough.

Which is what I was driving at in the first place, and you sneered about it. Whether it has an effect on AGW or not is debatable, but it will definitely have a beneficial effect on other stuff. Not cleaning up, regardless of whether the cleaning up would have an effect on our atmosphere (and it would because CO2 is not the only pollutant in the issue), is simply moronic.

Again, not at all. The excuse (claim) that everything is naturally cyclical is correct but it doesn't belong here.

Yes, the cycles happen. No, they have not happened the same way before.

This thread is about what to do about AGW, not whether it's real.

Yup, and I posted a lot of the things we did, which you sneered at and moaned that the world would come to an end if everyone tried it and it wouldn't work anyway. Well, bub, it worked for hubby and me and it's working for other countries.We haven't collapsed nor have the other countries that are acting upon the issue.

And if you ignore economic feasibility you're doomed to failure. That must be taken into consideration, just as human nature must.

So?

I think you should go back and read the whole thread. We're talking about how to reduce world CO2 emissions by 80%. In Canada, that's the equivalent to shutting down all industry, agriculture and transportation. You aren't thinking on anywhere near a big enough scale.

If the 80% is to be reached tomorrow, yeah. So what? What I have been saying is that I bet we can reach that 80%; it will just take time. Again, you seem to think I've been saying it should happen all in one day. You ASSume too much.

Not at all. When it costs up to $800,000 subsidy for every "green" job it's just not viable on its own. With the economic crash the Spanish government is in deep do-do and as a restraint initiative, apparently cut off subsidies to "green" industry and they collapsed.

I'm not exactly sure where you get this $800,000 subsidy for each green job but I suspect there've been a few zeroes added by some spinner or other.
So, Spanish green industry collapsed. That means dirty industries are ok? That means the green industry can't crank up again? That means dirty industries aren't also subsidised?

What that graph also doesn't tell you is how much energy is produced by those different sources. What's the amount of energy produced for each of them, for the money?

Fossil fuels provide us with reliable, cheap, dense and abundant energy. The other sources can't do that except for hydroelectricity. (Is that what's meant by "traditional renewables"?)[/quote]Reliable, yes. Cheap? Exxon didn't particularly think cleanup was cheap, and it got a hell of a deal on cost. BP thinks its energy is cheap? The accumulated effect on the planet after we've been messing it up over a century or so is cheap? I think you have a very narrow view of things and it has everything to do with short term monetary matters. Which means you ignore a lot of other related issues.

Moreover, they show corn ethanol as climate protecting. It isn't. Corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than it contains, thereby increasing emissions. They'd produce less CO2 by just burning fossil fuels instead.

So did hubby or I toss ethanol out as some sort of panacea? No. Gasoline with ethanol in it does not burn as efficiently so you have to use more to get the same amount of work done. Gas mileage goes down. We knew that long ago. It's why we quit using Mohawk gas.

I commented on those topics in response to someone else, which is why I didn't bother repeating it to her.

So I am to take your word/opinion as gospel truth and fact? lmao

I can only assume from that, you don't burn fossil fuels at all. How do you heat your house? What do you use for transportation? Just curious.

Quit ASSuming then, because that's not what he said. You're blowing smoke.

Uh-huh. Iran, which is exempt from any CO2 restrictions and doesn't bother with green industries. What are the fossil fuel subsidies in those countries which are also subsidizing developement of "green" industry? That info might actually be rellevant.

Why? You claimed that green industries need massive subsidies as some sort of lame excuse to not go green. All you've done is flap about after Ton showed that dirty industries also require massive subsidies.

 

[Tonington]

I've demonstrated why it can't.

No, you've demonstrated the hurdles. Don't delude yourself.

No I don't. Lomborgs position is to not waste time and resources on actions we know won't work and focus on developing tech that will.

Yet I give examples of where these wedges are working. We already have technology that will work. The reality that everyone acknowledges is that there is no single solution, that it has to be a portfolio or suite of solutions. That's what is clearly demonstrated with these wedges.

...but then anyone who believes in dangerous AGW also relies on those breakthroughs because we all know they're the only things that can accomplish what's required.

You can repeat this until your tongue falls out, it won't be true.

I'm continually amazed that you think you know so much more than every other expert in every field you happen to have an opinion on. Amazing.

Even your report relies on those breakthroughs.

No it doesn't.

If you've noticed, they only expect the wedges to stabilize the CO2 levels within 50 years which is the first part of their plan. The second part requires/expects new technology to solve the problem. Part II is the same as Lomborg.

Stabilizing CO2 levels is the goal...there is no Part II to the stabilization goal.

You don't wait for them, you work for them. What else you gonna do, waste money on stuff you know won't work just to be seen to be doing something? The effect of that on AGW would be...nothing, just the same as doing nothing, except much more costly.

LOMBORGS POSITION IS TO WAIT FOR THEM. Have you ever actually read his stuff? He says we should do nothing on even trying to combat greenhouse gases for the next 20 years. He does think we need to wait, even though we do have technologies which lower those very emissions that he says we must bring down.

That is...WAITING! Not working to achieve the easy results now...the supreme irony in that is thus:

By not spending money on infrastructure and existing technology to address those emissions, we reduce our capabilities to develop new technologies. It's completely assinine.

He doesn't advance the ball at all, and other economists have called him on that very point.

So why waste space in an already overlarge post to say that each and every time?

If you go back through that thread of comments, it leads back to the end of one of my posts, where I added that there are other technologies available and not included in the wedge stabilization. I guess you actually missed the point if you thought I was expecting you to comment on content that isn't there.

Call it supplemental, I had already said that the wedge stabilization is not meant to be a fixed road map...not very perceptive of....you.

However, you suggestion that the report leaves out other candidates still seems to me that you expect me to comment on unknowns, or else you're basing your expectations of success on complete unknowns, which is far less reasonable than Lomborg.

They aren't unknowns, they're existing technology that they didn't use in their report...I fail to see how that implies in any way that I expect you to comment on unknowns...

That's just hyperbole.

How so? Can you think of anything else which would be as challenging as completely re-tooling our energy infrastructure, and the global economy? I'm all ears if you can name and explain to me one challenge more complex than that.

They're avoiding talking about what would have to be done to reduce emissions as much as they claim is necessary.

So you include scientists in that assertion of yours, like Socolow and Pacala who shows us exactly how difficult it is going to be with these wedges?

Who's being hyperbolic now?

Calling it the challenge of our times and then telling us to save the planet by using curly light bulbs and taking transit etc. is the height of irresponsibility if AGW is a real threat as they claim.

So show us one scientist, one politician, anyone who says that if we change all the light bulbs in the world to compact fluorescent and ride on buses, that we can avoid the worst of climate change.

We'll all wait for you. Go ahead.

Can you put your money where your mouth is?

 

[Avro]

Here's part two of wind being part of the solution.

YouTube - Renewable Energy Solution of the Month: Wind - Part 2