I’m no longer advocating for clean energy; here’s why (2017)
jmkorhonen.net
jmkorhonen.net
I think both, the author and the author's antagonists, are right: it'll take a diversified source of energy (nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc) to ween the world off of burning shit, however it's very likely too late to mitigate the problems we're going to face as a result of human-induced climate change.
His point is that, "I'm a consultant, I work in sweeping generalizations and broker attention, give me money."
Edit: Irony being that some of the largest deployments of solar panels are in OPEC nations.
Farming algae outside urchin barrens (seaweed to the roof detail trim curb? arborea.io ) has come in to replace Biodynamic Gardening as a sink for phenanthrenes and other incomplete carbon releases. Finding ocean adaptations that could survive a failure to sequester CO2 production outside the ocean is under study (thermophile anaerobes will convert some CO2, favored algae may be found...)
I've rambled on to reiterate TFA's point to the title; year-on-year surplus weather damage makes advocacy moot in the manner of obvious; people universally know they like to do without damage or the migration/culling it sends around esp. between the equator and Ireland (or new global south; will the PLA make Shin New Zealand?)I'd love to find the source of this quote though and check it's validity.