Environment & Energy

Wind is one of cleanest, “greenest” and least costly sources of energy. Offshore Wind is more costly, but still economically viable while being much cleaner than fossil fuels and safer than nuclear. Floating Offshore Wind mitigates the NIMBY effect because turbines are much farther offshore. But I want to see wind turbines off the Pacific Coast and Hawaii because that’s what doing something about Climate Change actually looks like.

“Radical environmentalists” have long opposed data centers, factory farm meat and dairy production, and car culture. How effective has that really that been so far? Has it made a real dent in climate change or energy use? Have “Radical environmentalists” successfully convinced a majority to voluntarily reduce their carbon footprints to achieve measurable reductions in carbon output? Or is that really just “doing nothing in the long run to reduce the total amount of greenhouse gasses humans ultimately dump into the atmosphere”.

We no longer have the luxury to wait for ideal solutions. Wind and solar energy have some downsides but they both have the tremendous economic advantage of "extracting" an unlimited resource that doesn't affect the climate. The renewable industries now have inertia and momentum around the world and both are showing an amazing range of innovation and flexibility allowing better ways to integrate with existing electric grids but also to support development of a new "really green" hydrogen economy.

Real Radical Environmentalist Bill McKibben champions solar and wind energy as the most effective tools to combat climate change, arguing they are now the cheapest power sources, represent the fastest energy transition in history, and offer a path to a more democratic and sustainable future, despite disinformation campaigns from the fossil fuel industry