Black or green tea?

Well, that’s not correct.

Rather it’s: it takes a lot of “Black Gold, Texas Tea” and such to go Green. Example: wind “turbines would sprawl across three-fourths of the Lower 48 US states – and require 15 billion tons of steel, concrete and other raw materials. They would wipe out eagles, hawks, bats.”

Steel production has declined significantly from the days we loaned money to these companies; now it’s only 80-90MM tons annually. If the above example was mostly steel, that would be the better part of two centuries of steel production. Yikes! How does that save us in 12 years?

This Green foolishness is sooooo stoopid. All the idiot D candidates are way into the “existential crisis” nonsense – as if a country with 4% of world population could control global anything.

Final point: we view this as essentially a generational matter, even though a few of the D’s are old coots. It’s the hip versus the oldsters. The hip are SJW wokes and their CNN and grad school hipster comrades. The old coots like a lot of the cultural solidarity of the US up until recent decades. Who controls the culture? — it’s why a lot of these folks loathe and detest Orange Man.

Media update: we’re outraged that some guy is playing golf!

2 Responses to “Black or green tea?”

  1. Steve Says:

  2. Bob Risko Says:

    If I understand Hinderacker’s argument, summarized, it’s this: Mass green energy would require 1) countless wind turbines and solar panels for the power, which would require 2) countless mines for the raw materials, which would require 3) countless toxic-waste dumps for the chemicals released in the process. Irrefutable logic, I’d say.

Leave a Reply