Search results

It is an argument to follow pragmatic market pricing and what sources they point at on energy and other resources.

If you have neither hydrocarbons nor energy to make hydrocarbons then you have a bigger problem than not having energy to make hydrocarbons, that means you have no reliable energy at all. >we All the logic of global resource conservation strategies fail to take into account the existence of the...

Any reasonably competent industrial chemist knows how to synthesize those, it's only a matter of price and energy.

Good for a loosely populated third world country with lots of spare farmland and little power needed. For developed countries, a couple percent of energy needs at most with burning agricultural leftovers and other crap like hay no one needs, green scam to do it on mass scale (costs more than the...

The correct answer to this is "so what?" Humans have no interest in trying to make Earth's climate stay in precisely the same state as it was around early human civilization at all cost. Nevermind that eventually it's gonna shift away from that by itself anyway (ice ages, sun, tectonic plates...

This is more of an economic\engineering problem than something that will take a revolution. It's part of the reason why it also can't be done in desperation, it's just something that can't be done quickly, and it takes massive up-front investment. Ironically, that would be the perfect fit with...

I wouldn't use the term massive. Especially comparing to the Ukraine war which is ongoing and everyone is hearing about.