34·
23 days agoDeleting X is a violation of his first amendment rights and he’ll sue all of you!
- 0 Posts
- 4 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
Cake day: January 29th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
To be fair. His farming ventures have moved his opinion on climate in a positive direction.
But have they? His insistence at this point is that he doesn’t have to do anything, or change anything, science will “solve the issue”. Nothing better than someone who thinks any mess they make can be cleaned up by someone else so why bother trying to make any changes that makes your life slightly less convenient?
He added: ‘I won’t drive a Tesla. I’ve got probably 10 cars, all with V8 engines. I don’t think electric cars solve anything. Science is going to be needed here, not politics. Science will solve it eventually. Always does.’
https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/29/problem-jeremy-clarksons-global-warming-joke-20736068/
To be fair. His farming ventures have moved his opinion on climate in a positive direction.
181·2 months agoThe map is just bad? They’re throwing large groups of states together that have literally no control over what other states do. For instance, it groups part of North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois together as if they’re one giant blob and then saying they’re only 10% renewable and 31% “low carbon” (whatever that means).
A quick look at Illinois shows it’s 55% nuclear and 21.6% renewables for a grand total of 76% of their power being carbon free. Minnesota is 41% renewable, 25.3% nuclear, for a grand total of 66% carbon free electricity. Iowa is 90% (!!!) renewables. Even Wisconsin is 20% nuclear and 15.6% renewables.
https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=MN
https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=IL
https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=WI
https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=IA
However this map is being generated, it appears to be absolute garbage and intentionally skewed, and isn’t basing any of this on any logic. It can’t be based on population served or on size of ground covered.
“Why would I vote for a primary party candidate who supports ranked choice voting when I can just throw my vote away on a third-party candidate that will never be elected? I’ve got principles!”