Arnold "Doesn't Give A ****" If You Agree On Climate Change

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Arnold "Doesn't Give A ****" If You Agree On Climate Change

Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't care what you think about climate change: He's going to talk you into renewable energy anyway.

Between the Paris conference and our exceptionally warm winter, climate change is on everyone's mind. And while it's great that the world's nations have a greenhouse gas accord, making businesses and the public follow suit might prove a difficult task. But you know who could pull it off? The freaking Terminator. Arnold Schwarzenegger himself recently posted an open letter on Facebook, making a case for renewable energy that has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. In fact, Arnold "doesn't give a ****" whether you think climate change is real or not.

"Let's put climate change aside for a minute. In fact, let's assume you're right." Schwarzenegger writes. "Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels. Do you accept those deaths? Do you accept that children all over the world have to grow up breathing with inhalers? Now, my second question: Do you believe coal and oil will be the fuels of the future? Besides the fact that fossil fuels destroy our lungs, everyone agrees that eventually they will run out.

"I, personally, want a plan. I don't want to be like the last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads. I don't want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged. That's exactly what is going to happen to fossil fuels."

Schwarzenegger also argues that renewable energy actually boosts the economy, using California as an early-adopter example. This certainly isn't a new belief for Schwarzenegger - he expressed the same sentiments during his time as governor. But it's still a refreshing approach that doesn't get bogged down by the same greenhouse gas discussion. It's worth reading in full, even if the "four-letter word" he chooses is tamer than you might think.

"Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car," Schwarzenegger writes. "Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast. I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.

"I'm guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice - who would ever want to breathe those fumes? This is the choice the world is making right now."

Although as some Facebook commenters noted, there might have been a better way to end this post:

Source: Facebook, via US Magazine

Permalink

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

MCerberus:
Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's likely due to the fact that a large part of the environmental movement is openly anti-capitalist, so they wouldn't want something they see as a negative used as an argument for what would most likely end up being nuclear power, another thing that a lot of environmentalists are for whatever reason again despite the fact it's the only clean source of energy that, lest we finish developing nuclear fusion, can realistically replace fossil fuels.

Basically environmentalists are their own worst enemies these days, and it'll take more people making arguments for pragmatism instead of arguments for ideology for that to change.

MCerberus:
Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's a really strong argument, and lots of people really don't even get it.

The state (for lack of a better term, state like for example Texas, although it has a little bit less independece) in germany I'm in has a green government ... and is the strongest industrial state in germany.

It did have a bit of a slump ... before the greens came to power. Now it is going strong again, because of pushing that stuff.

Although the greens here are really funny, they basically went with conservatism ... only green ... in the elections.

MCerberus:
Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies. Renewables get a $7.3 billion subsidy per year as opposed to nuclear power's $1.1 billion. Yet both produce no carbon and nuclear is available 24/7 and requires no back up power plants for when the wind isn't blowing/ sun isnt shining.

Isn't Arnold Republican? I don't see the party approving of this.

Renewable energy isn't something we should all strive for just because climate change is a real threat. If we switch to renewable energy, then we'll have no use for Saudi Arabia as an "ally". And seeing how Saudi Arabia is behind the spread of Wahhabi ideology and they're the main financier of terrorism, we'll finally be able to deal with the source of the whole problem.

MCerberus:
Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

There's great, capitalist arguments for most environmentally friendly things, cutting back waste, recycling things like Aluminium, insulating or using LED lightbulbs, and so on and so forth. All these things have really great arguments from a capitalist sense, saving money in the long term by investing is, after all, one of the core parts of modern economics.

However, modern environmentalism is violently anti-capitalist, there's more than a few people on this very forum who, in a recent thread, were trying to argue that we needed to 'dismantle capitalism' or other slogans like that in order to be green, and that's just a lost cause.

albino boo:

MCerberus:
Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
None of the major industries would be profitable if they incurred the public health, social, and environmental costs themselves. Allowing them to deplete 'natural capital' (existing value of stuff like clean water and a stable atmosphere) without recompense is itself basically a massive subsidy.

Also, quantifying the economic value of having a habitable planet is lunacy.

Asclepion:

albino boo:

MCerberus:
Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
None of the major industries would be profitable if they incurred the public health, social, and environmental costs themselves. Allowing them to deplete 'natural capital' (existing value of stuff like clean water and a stable atmosphere) without recompense is itself basically a massive subsidy.

Also, quantifying the economic value of having a habitable planet is lunacy.

So why choose the most expensive option?

albino boo:

MCerberus:
Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies. Renewables get a $7.3 billion subsidy per year as opposed to nuclear power's $1.1 billion. Yet both produce no carbon and nuclear is available 24/7 and requires no back up power plants for when the wind isn't blowing/ sun isnt shining.

Actually there's the concept of critical mass at play here. By putting resouces into renewables until they're viable at which point the whole system moves forward on this path. These sort of cross-sector relationships are common. There's also the down-wind benefits of going green. Do you know how much economic output can be recovered by reducing pollution? IT'S INSANE. Even when you just think of health costs.

The problem is twofold: 1, the ghost of Rand continues to spread her disastrous ideology and people for some reason listen (side note, Objectivism fails the exact same way communism does, in that it doesn't actually account for human nature. That's why it's so short sided. Oh, and it's actually a non-arguable ethical system as in, it doesn't actually mean anything) and yell loudly about it.

2. As stated by others, nuclear keeps being rejected because it's "scary", despite the track record (aside from being the cleanest source of energy by killowatt hour, but it caused less injury and death since its invention as a power source than coal kills in a year)

This might not be 100% related, but aren't the people lobbying against renewable energy usually on the conservative side of the political spectrum? Which is ironic, considering they aren't conserving the planet.

(+1 clever point for me, check)

MCerberus:

albino boo:

MCerberus:
Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies. Renewables get a $7.3 billion subsidy per year as opposed to nuclear power's $1.1 billion. Yet both produce no carbon and nuclear is available 24/7 and requires no back up power plants for when the wind isn't blowing/ sun isnt shining.

Actually there's the concept of critical mass at play here. By putting resouces into renewables until they're viable at which point the whole system moves forward on this path. These sort of cross-sector relationships are common. There's also the down-wind benefits of going green. Do you know how much economic output can be recovered by reducing pollution? IT'S INSANE. Even when you just think of health costs.

The problem is twofold: 1, the ghost of Rand continues to spread her disastrous ideology and people for some reason listen (side note, Objectivism fails the exact same way communism does, in that it doesn't actually account for human nature. That's why it's so short sided. Oh, and it's actually a non-arguable ethical system as in, it doesn't actually mean anything) and yell loudly about it.

2. As stated by others, nuclear keeps being rejected because it's "scary", despite the track record (aside from being the cleanest source of energy by killowatt hour, but it caused less injury and death since its invention as a power source than coal kills in a year)

So after 20 years and $100s of billions of dollars spent by governments world wide why hasn't it happened? The reality here is that renewables are not as efficient as non renewables. In the real world, this week Opec has predicted an oil price of $35 a barrel until 2040. Electric cars cannot compete with an oil price that low. Its very simple, the chemical bonds in gasoline have more energy stored in them than you can get out of any battery. So the energy stored per volume in gas makes it more efficient. I can remember as long as the early 80s all the talk about hydrogen fuel cells powering vehicles and yet 30 years later its still talk. 10 years ago the same people who are talking about criticality where talking about peak oil. In the real world the oil price is the lowest since 2004 and falling.

Adam Jensen:
Renewable energy isn't something we should all strive for just because climate change is a real threat. If we switch to renewable energy, then we'll have no use for Saudi Arabia as an "ally". And seeing how Saudi Arabia is behind the spread of Wahhabi ideology and they're the main financier of terrorism, we'll finally be able to deal with the source of the whole problem.

To take this one step further, the more we push renewable energy in our own country, foreign automakers will eventually follow giving us this trickle effect, giving us the scenario where other countries also aren't dependent on Saudi Arabia. And then we will also have a large supply of oil we aren't using nearly as much of.

He is, of course, completely right. Climate change debate be damned, the future will always be in renewables, but oil companies are too short sighted, to worried about their bottom line. It's pointless to try and win people over to one side or the other on climate change. Regardless of what you think, you want to live in a clean world where the electricity flows endlessly.

Zontar:

Basically environmentalists are their own worst enemies these days, and it'll take more people making arguments for pragmatism instead of arguments for ideology for that to change.

This is a 100% accurate description. You have to either drink all of their Kool-Aid or none of it, it's complete nonsense. It doesn't help that a whole lot of people buy into the idea without even knowing the first thing about environmentalism. People talk about Green movements and Sustainability, but only take it at face value.

albino boo:

MCerberus:

albino boo:

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies. Renewables get a $7.3 billion subsidy per year as opposed to nuclear power's $1.1 billion. Yet both produce no carbon and nuclear is available 24/7 and requires no back up power plants for when the wind isn't blowing/ sun isnt shining.

Actually there's the concept of critical mass at play here. By putting resouces into renewables until they're viable at which point the whole system moves forward on this path. These sort of cross-sector relationships are common. There's also the down-wind benefits of going green. Do you know how much economic output can be recovered by reducing pollution? IT'S INSANE. Even when you just think of health costs.

The problem is twofold: 1, the ghost of Rand continues to spread her disastrous ideology and people for some reason listen (side note, Objectivism fails the exact same way communism does, in that it doesn't actually account for human nature. That's why it's so short sided. Oh, and it's actually a non-arguable ethical system as in, it doesn't actually mean anything) and yell loudly about it.

2. As stated by others, nuclear keeps being rejected because it's "scary", despite the track record (aside from being the cleanest source of energy by killowatt hour, but it caused less injury and death since its invention as a power source than coal kills in a year)

So after 20 years and $100s of billions of dollars spent by governments world wide why hasn't it happened? The reality here is that renewables are not as efficient as non renewables. In the real world, this week Opec has predicted an oil price of $35 a barrel until 2040. Electric cars cannot compete with an oil price that low. Its very simple, the chemical bonds in gasoline have more energy stored in them than you can get out of any battery. So the energy stored per volume in gas makes it more efficient. I can remember as long as the early 80s all the talk about hydrogen fuel cells powering vehicles and yet 30 years later its still talk. 10 years ago the same people who are talking about criticality where talking about peak oil. In the real world the oil price is the lowest since 2004 and falling.

You understand why oil is falling, right? It's because OPEC is still pumping oil like it was when America was heavy in Iraq and all. They're doing this to try and push America and Russia out of the shale game since that needs expensive oil to be profitable. They're running themselves ragged trying to keep it up. Oh, and your prediction on oil price is not their prediction. These low oil prices are entirely artificial as OPEC runs through their supply faster than they need to.

Rawbeard:
Isn't Arnold Republican? I don't see the party approving of this.

He's a Californian Republican. Totally different thing.

shintakie10:

Rawbeard:
Isn't Arnold Republican? I don't see the party approving of this.

He's a Californian Republican. Totally different thing.

I don't know, Nixon and Reagan where both California Republicans as well.

Should we start looking to renewable energy? Absolutely. Is current renewable energy just as effective as fossil fuels? Only nuclear energy. And even then, only certain kinds of reactors.

albino boo:

MCerberus:
Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies. Renewables get a $7.3 billion subsidy per year as opposed to nuclear power's $1.1 billion. Yet both produce no carbon and nuclear is available 24/7 and requires no back up power plants for when the wind isn't blowing/ sun isnt shining.

Fossil fuels were never profitable before.

Literally the only reason they are now is because the governments of the world literally shoveled money at companies to invest in research, exploration and extraction of fossil fuels early on. The grants and tax benefits of today are leftovers from that program - which is why people argue that governments should stop helping these companies now and switch to green energy, since oil and fossil fuel extraction is literally the most profitable business on the planet and doesn't need the help anymore.

Zontar:

shintakie10:

Rawbeard:
Isn't Arnold Republican? I don't see the party approving of this.

He's a Californian Republican. Totally different thing.

I don't know, Nixon and Reagan where both California Republicans as well.

Fun fact: Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, he did so as an executive order (he didn't have the support at the time) and made it an independent regulatory agency.

It could've been one of his most important legacies were it not for... Well, you know.

freaper:
This might not be 100% related, but aren't the people lobbying against renewable energy usually on the conservative side of the political spectrum? Which is ironic, considering they aren't conserving the planet.

(+1 clever point for me, check)

That's a matter of who gets (or wants) campaign donations from oil companies more than anything else. A substantial number of rich people are oil men, so you'll see a lot of both Republicans and Democrats reflexively defend their interests. Not all of them, though. And fewer Democrats than Republicans, given the various party positions on the matter.

Man these discussions always amuse me, then they depress me as I realize howmuch stupid will continue to float around and muddy the waters so no progress is made.
So let's just simplfy things for those who have difficulty comprehending: "It can't be done" are the first words spoken about every new technology that ever came to this planet, people also kept saying them as they rode horses past those mad oil powered carriages.

"I'm guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice - who would ever want to breathe those fumes? This is the choice the world is making right now."

I'm a cybernetic hypermetal alloy being. I'll just spend the time in *either* room making funny animal shapes with my body. Maybe just become a puddle for awhile when I get bored of that... In fact, why don't I split myself up and be in BOTH rooms at the same time! Is it okay if I leave after *half* an hour? Got more stuff to do, like build some more advanced solar panels ;)

Now THAT's the Schwarzie I love!!

crimson5pheonix:

You understand why oil is falling, right? It's because OPEC is still pumping oil like it was when America was heavy in Iraq and all. They're doing this to try and push America and Russia out of the shale game since that needs expensive oil to be profitable. They're running themselves ragged trying to keep it up. Oh, and your prediction on oil price is not their prediction. These low oil prices are entirely artificial as OPEC runs through their supply faster than they need to.

Apart from the small but important fact that according to the pak oil theory we should have already run out of oil and be suffering and economic depression due to oil shock. The peak oil theory was the previous way the renewables lobby were justifying the massive subsidies to their industry. Now thats has proved to be nonsense, the current one is critical mass. In ten years time it will be another one.

Furthermore you fail to understand that the $100 a barrel oil price was artificial. OPEC operated as cartel to keep prices high, a practice that is illegal for any business to engage in. In addition China is in engaging in dumping solar panels on the world at less than cost price. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-09/u-s-imposes-dumping-duties-on-imports-of-chinese-solar-goods .

Paragon Fury:

Fossil fuels were never profitable before.

Literally the only reason they are now is because the governments of the world literally shoveled money at companies to invest in research, exploration and extraction of fossil fuels early on. The grants and tax benefits of today are leftovers from that program - which is why people argue that governments should stop helping these companies now and switch to green energy, since oil and fossil fuel extraction is literally the most profitable business on the planet and doesn't need the help anymore.

Utter nonsense. I strongly suggest that you start living in the real world. Opec has operated as a cartel to artificially inflate the oil price for the last 40 years. The cartel has broken due the joint aggressive actions of Iran and Russia in the middle east. Meaning the oil price is were is would be if there was a free market.

Smooth Operator:
Man these discussions always amuse me, then they depress me as I realize howmuch stupid will continue to float around and muddy the waters so no progress is made.
So let's just simplfy things for those who have difficulty comprehending: "It can't be done" are the first words spoken about every new technology that ever came to this planet, people also kept saying them as they rode horses past those mad oil powered carriages.

Until you realise that the renewable is a business lobby just like any other and is purely out to maximise their profits and not some morally pure saints there will be no progress. Why invest in massive risky R&D programmes when you get rich off taxpayers money at no risk with existing technology.

Adam Jensen:
Renewable energy isn't something we should all strive for just because climate change is a real threat. If we switch to renewable energy, then we'll have no use for Saudi Arabia as an "ally". And seeing how Saudi Arabia is behind the spread of Wahhabi ideology and they're the main financier of terrorism, we'll finally be able to deal with the source of the whole problem.

And that is why such outcome is highly unlikely.
Companies interested in profit from oil have strong lobby in government.
And evil trrrists are good boogeyman to scare voters with.

That's a pretty compelling argument that really hasn't got much of a counter. Unless the advocates of fossil fuels want to go sniffing on all the exhaust pipes.

the silence:

MCerberus:
Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's a really strong argument, and lots of people really don't even get it.

The state (for lack of a better term, state like for example Texas, although it has a little bit less independece) in germany I'm in has a green government ... and is the strongest industrial state in germany.

I respect the switch that Germany made. Except for the part where tons of brown coal was being mined / burned in response to the knee-jerk closing of nuclear facilities, plus the covering of tons of your open space with solar farms.

albino boo:
snip

Don't kid yourself, we've just swung to the opposite side of the supply curve. These prices aren't good for the companies involved. And peak oil is a mathematical certainty. We know how oil is formed and the rate of consumption. Determining when exactly we'll hit peak oil is difficult due in no small part to OPEC and it's price fixing, but that doesn't change that there is a point of peak oil. Pretending we'll have oil forever does no one any good.

crimson5pheonix:

albino boo:
snip

Don't kid yourself, we've just swung to the opposite side of the supply curve. These prices aren't good for the companies involved. And peak oil is a mathematical certainty. We know how oil is formed and the rate of consumption. Determining when exactly we'll hit peak oil is difficult due in no small part to OPEC and it's price fixing, but that doesn't change that there is a point of peak oil. Pretending we'll have oil forever does no one any good.

Peak oil is like the inevitable victory of Marxism Leninism, a so called science but in fact an article of political dogma. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone. We didn't stop using coal fired steam trains because of massive government subsidies but because diesel engines are cheaper to run. The marketplace will find replacements for oil that will be cheaper and more efficient than handing out big fat tax breaks to existing technology that can compete in the real world. Its wasn't big government that built the 19th rail revolution, it wasn't big government that developed the plane, the car, the steam turbine, the container ship and it won't be big government that finds the oil replacement. Its very simple, the market place relies on multiple people making decisions on what they think will work and persuading other people to invest their money. Big government reiles on one person spending other people's money on what they think will make them popular. Success and failure is measured in different terms.

albino boo:

crimson5pheonix:

albino boo:
snip

Don't kid yourself, we've just swung to the opposite side of the supply curve. These prices aren't good for the companies involved. And peak oil is a mathematical certainty. We know how oil is formed and the rate of consumption. Determining when exactly we'll hit peak oil is difficult due in no small part to OPEC and it's price fixing, but that doesn't change that there is a point of peak oil. Pretending we'll have oil forever does no one any good.

Peak oil is like the inevitable victory of Marxism Leninism, a so called science but in fact an article of political dogma. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone. We didn't stop using coal fired steam trains because of massive government subsidies but because diesel engines are cheaper to run. The marketplace will find replacements for oil that will be cheaper and more efficient than handing out big fat tax breaks to existing technology that can compete in the real world. Its wasn't big government that built the 19th rail revolution, it wasn't big government that developed the plane, the car, the steam turbine, the container ship and it won't be big government that finds the oil replacement. Its very simple, the market place relies on multiple people making decisions on what they think will work and persuading other people to invest their money. Big government reiles on one person spending other people's money on what they think will make them popular. Success and failure is measured in different terms.

You notice I'm not talking about government, I'm talking about reality. Arnold has the right idea, it's a strong investment. And once again, peak oil IS a fact. It's one of the few things that is an actual mathematics fact. If you empty a bucket faster than it fills, the bucket will empty out.

It always struck me as weird as people will damn the one concrete thing we have (e.g the planet) for man made and controlled ideals (e.g the economy).

Let me come to a Benz dealership one day saying I have a Rai Stone and I'll say it's theirs if they give me a car. They'll laugh me right out of the shop. Why? It's currency. People took it as value once, so if everyone else adopts it, it's value now.

That's how stable and how finite this concept is. Some people say it's worth something, some people don't. And we're ready to damn everything because of value.

I rather be on a planet that I'm not scared to bring children into with weaker cars and transport than be on a planet that I could go 250 miles per hour... yet never, EVER legally (but I have the option!), yet have to wonder if every heat wave is just a capricious thing or a sign of things to come.

blackrave:

Adam Jensen:
Renewable energy isn't something we should all strive for just because climate change is a real threat. If we switch to renewable energy, then we'll have no use for Saudi Arabia as an "ally". And seeing how Saudi Arabia is behind the spread of Wahhabi ideology and they're the main financier of terrorism, we'll finally be able to deal with the source of the whole problem.

And that is why such outcome is highly unlikely.
Companies interested in profit from oil have strong lobby in government.
And evil trrrists are good boogeyman to scare voters with.

That's the situation in America (and the UK because UK does what its told). But they're not the only countries in the world. If the rest of the world decides to invest heavily in renewable energy (and they are), that changes everything even for the US. Energy independence is the future that every country wants for itself. If you add to that the fact that car manufacturers are investing more in electric cars then there's no amount of lobbying that could prevent this change. No amount of political shenanigans that will save OPEC from ceasing to exist in less than 50 years.

Fanghawk:

"Let's put climate change aside for a minute. In fact, let's assume you're right." Schwarzenegger writes. "Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels. Do you accept those deaths? Do you accept that children all over the world have to grow up breathing with inhalers? Now, my second question: Do you believe coal and oil will be the fuels of the future? Besides the fact that fossil fuels destroy our lungs, everyone agrees that eventually they will run out.

"I, personally, want a plan. I don't want to be like the last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads. I don't want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged. That's exactly what is going to happen to fossil fuels."

Ignoring his sealed room argument as the infantile BS it is, if he was serious about replacing coal, which outright by far the worst offender when it comes to fossil fuel power generation, then he would be screaming for research into LFTRs, or any sort of thorium reactor. Given the ubiquity of thorium and the inability of thorium reactions to go critical, instead of $.07-.10 KWH you would be looking at $.10-.15MWH. Power generation that cheap would be the absolute best way to end poverty, at least when poverty is defined as the inability to access basic living conditions like food, fresh water, and a warm/cool place to sleep at night.

The utterly amusing thing about climate change is that NONE of the solutions proposed by the leftist environmental movement would solve the problem. Assuming arguendo that anthropogenic CO2 forcing has caused the rise in temperature, there are EXACTLY three possible solutions. Solution Number 1 is to kill off 90+% of the human race. Obviously, there are many who would vociferously object. Solution number 2 is climate geongineering,, which if we can't predict what weather systems do now, introducing various chemical solutions to the upper atmosphere seems like a REALLY bad idea. That leaves Solution Number 3, permanent CO2 sequestration. Currently, there is no tech available to do this. That requires inventing it. That means throwing a shitload of money at it, and in order to leverage both corporate and university talent, that means a combination of research grants and X-Prize type initiatives. But of course, suggesting that the answer is not austerities is verboten to the guilt-ridden left. I'd make a joke about Cathlolic guilt, but at this point they're pikers compared to the environmentalists.

This is a point I've tried to make to people for ages. Environment aside, we know that fossil fuels will run out, so we have to prepare for that orse there'll be no power for anyone.

It's also a point that Clarkson, Hammond and May have being trying to put across, especially talking about hydrogen fuel cells, but people tend to not take them seriously, so when they make a good point it gets ignored.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here