Guest “I couldn’t make this kind of slate up if I tried” by David Middleton
Even a “carbon-free future for all” would not be sustainable for all. All life on earth would cease to exist in a “carbon-free future”.
Perhaps the people on Google Google Duck Duck should use the word “carbon”.
A MESSAGE FROM OUR CEO
Our third decade of climate protection: making a carbon-free future a reality
Sundar Pichai
CEO of Google and Alphabet
Published September 14, 2020
Floods a few years ago devastated …
[…]
In our third decade of climate protection, we are going even further to build a carbon-free future for all. Here’s how:
*We are eliminating all of our carbon legacy effective today.
*We’re the first major company to commit to running zero-carbon energy 24/7 in all of our data centers and campuses around the world. This is far more difficult than the traditional approach of combining energy use with renewables, but we are working to achieve this by 2030.
*We invest in technologies that help our partners and employees around the world make sustainable decisions. For example, we’re investing in manufacturing regions to enable 5 GW of new carbon-free energy, help 500 cities reduce their carbon footprint, and find new ways to empower 1 billion people through our products.
*We estimate the commitments we make today will directly create more than 20,000 new jobs in clean energy and related industries in America and around the world by 2025.
[…]
Let’s accept the notion that they mean a “carbon free energy future for all” … No energy source or power generation is “carbon free”. Neither solar panels nor wind turbines are “carbon free”. Hydroelectric plants are not “carbon free”. Nuclear power plants are not “carbon free”. They all need cement and / or steel.
Two of the stupidest climate phrases:
- CO2-free future
- Fossil future
The first is a future without life and the second is a future without death.
Let’s get Ron White’s opinion:
Like this:
Loading…
Comments are closed.