A Quote by Michael Shellenberger

If solar and wind farms are needed to protect the natural environment, why do they so often destroy it? — © Michael Shellenberger
If solar and wind farms are needed to protect the natural environment, why do they so often destroy it?
Our nation is well equipped to make the transition. We have an abundance of natural resources like wind, natural gas, solar and geothermal.
I'm all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, et cetera. But we need much more than wind and solar.
The foundation is being laid for the emergence of both wind and solar cells as cornerstones of the new energy economy. World wind generating capacity grew from 7,600 megawatts in 1997 to 9,600 in 1998, an expansion of 26 percent. At a national level, Germany led the way, adding 790 megawatts of capacity, followed by Spain with 380 megawatts, and the United States with 226 megawatts. In the past, U.S. wind generating capacity was concentrated in California, but in 1998, wind farms began generating electricity in Minnesota, Oregon, and Wyoming, broadening the new industry's geographical base.
Neither solar nor wind are actually substitutes for coal or natural gas or oil.
But Alberta has the best potential of any province for solar energy. It has enormous potential for wind power. And so replacing coal in Alberta with wind and solar is totally doable, and good for their economy.
The idea that we're going to replace oil and natural gas with solar and wind, and nothing else, is a hallucinatory delusion.
Hydroelectric dams remain the way many poor countries gain access to reliable electricity, and both solar and wind might be worthwhile in some circumstances. But there is nothing in either their history or their physical attributes that suggests solar and wind in particular could or should be the centerpiece of efforts to deal with climate change.
Solar and wind advocates say cheaper solar panels and wind turbines will make the future growth in renewables cheaper than past growth but there are reasons to believe the opposite will be the case.
Our nation's power plant fleet must include a mix of solar, wind, hydro, natural gas and nuclear plants.
In reality, Republicans have long been at war with clean energy. They have ridiculed investments in solar and wind power, bashed energy-efficiency standards, attacked state moves to promote renewable energy and championed laws that would enshrine taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels while stripping them from wind and solar.
If you have the wind farms but no transmission, you just have things blowing in the wind.
I recognize the need for technology that enriches life while preserving our natural environment. My goal is to stimulate productivity, but use technology to redeem, not to destroy our environment.
Only nuclear can lift all humans out of poverty while saving the natural environment. Nothing else - not coal, not solar, not geo-engineering - can do that.
It was strange, how easily and quickly protection could cause destruction. Sometimes, Vasher wondered if the two weren't really the same thing. Protect a flower, destroy pests who wanted to feed on it. Protect a building, destroy the plants that could have grown in the soil. Protect a man. Live with the destruction he creates.
The ecologist has a much more comprehensive and holistic view of the world. We're looking at the natural environment as well as the human built environment and the connectivity between the two - how do the natural environment and the human-built environment interact and interface with each other.
I do not believe that we have to destroy our economy in order to protect our environment. And especially what these programs are asking us to pass that will do nothing to help the environment, but will be devastating for our economy.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!