#solarpower

Ben & Jerry’s Woke Windfarm Whippy

No photo description available.

Just when we thought COVID-19 had killed off climate change, Ben & Jerry’s social justice warriors will allow consumers to name an ice cream by donating money.

We thought of:

Climate Corona-netto,

Woke Windfarm Whip,

Toxic Solarcell Cadmium Cherry

Windfarm Blade Bury Berry

CSIRO Costings Crumble

It will be fascinating to see how much emissions will have fallen given the drop off in air traffic and other global travel restrictions due to lockdown.

We wrote about the dirt on solar panels here.

We discussed the problems with recycling wind turbine blades here.

Perhaps Ben & Jerry’s may do well to refer to the CSIRO study on the impacts of going 100% fossil-fuel-free.

Before we even get to 100%, the CSIRO’s energy transition costings forecast costs to exceed $1 trillion with a “T” out to 2050 (p.135). Note this report isn’t even a net-zero study – just lower emissions. So by that logic, net-zero will cost even more. CSIRO assures us that “these costs do not include the full integration costs of renewables, but that these costs are expected to be significantly less than $175 billion.” Who cares about billions in a world of trillions? Significantly less? Can anyone name a government project that has come in on time and on budget? Submarines? NBN? The beauty of spending other people’s money.

We wish to put forward to Ben & Jerry’s how they will manage to keep their ice cream frozen without the help of the carbon economy? From the aluminium (one of the most energy-intensive materials to produce) freezers, to the electric motors to maintain the correct temperature. To the cups and plastic spoons to serve and the use of oil to make the cones.

Perhaps the most interesting stats come from the ice cream maker itself. It suggests that making 1 pint of ice cream leads to 2lb of CO2 emissions. Driving a car 1 mile leads to 1lb of CO2 emissions. So technically if one is able to drive to the supermarket and back they could produce fewer emissions than the ice cream they end up buying. Perhaps they should stop selling ice cream to save the planet?

You’ll never guess what else Ben & Jerry’s support? The Black Lives Matter movement. We look forward to the company banning all vanilla ice cream to stop the systemic racism the company seems to believe is still rife, despite race-based hate crime hoaxes being the norm, not the exception.

Climate experts demand Planet of the Humans be taken down

Planet of the humans

You have to love the climate alarmists. Instead of challenging, dissecting and dismantling each point made in ‘Planet of the Humans‘ that was factually incorrect or misleading, it is far easy to lean on “the science is settled” argument and put pressure on YouTube pull it down.

How do these people honestly think they will persuade climate sceptics or people sitting on the fence if the only answer is to stifle or shut down debate? What of those climate alarmists who may have been disappointed to see the crony socialism at play? If the science is indeed on their side, why not provide the rebuttals rich in data and empirical facts? That way people can make even more informed decisions instead of being pilloried for questioning such findings.

Let’s be honest. The truth is that renewables rely very heavily on the fossil fuel industry. From the mining of the raw materials to the energy-intensive manufacturing processes.

We, like most rational people, want clean air and efficient use of resources that minimise waste but the problem is that the economics to put these green dreams into action is punitive. Should we accept that one needs 400x the area of a gas-fired power plant to produce the same amount of output with renewables?

We could go on and on. Bill McKibben of the Sierra Club gifted us some amusing backflips much like his colleague Aaron Mair did in a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the environment. The video is utterly hilarious in showing just how little the Sierra Club knows about the supposed field of expertise – global warming. The hot air was in abundance.

We have always wondered why even if one wanted to believe the supposed 97% of scientists that concur with global warming, isn’t there any curiosity about what the 3% have to say that challenges the prevailing sentiment?

Why not solar panels on Notre Dame? A turbine on Eiffel?

What is it with people who don’t want to respect centuries of tradition and history? When the 850yo cathedral caught fire the world looked on in collective horror. Now some nitwits think that “climate change” should dominate the restoration of one of Paris’ most iconic buildings.

The Independent wrote, “In response, Paris based architects Studio NAB submitted a design that is adapted to perhaps the greatest challenge of our era: climate change.”

Why not suggest to city planners they should attach a giant propellor to the Eiffel Tower so it can generate wind power?

Climate change is a religion. Sadly Notre Dame is of Catholic faith, not part of the global warming diocese, even with a social justice warrior as the Pope.

Maybe Australia can take notes and clad the Sydney Opera House in solar panels? Perhaps the Japanese can tear down Kiyomizudera and use the wood for biomass?