I think this may be one of your best, yet. Such an important topic. How do we get there from here without destroying our natural support systems. Thanks for your work, Tony!
Thanks for amassing all this information, Tony! Amazing job.
I have a big problem with so-called renewables. First of all, they’re not renewable! In what sense are these things renewable? yes, wind is renewable and so is the sunlight (but ironically, we’re getting less sunlight due to the constant rain that’s coming into my area anyway). So yes, wind and sun are there as potentially renewable resources but the infrastructure and the mechanisms to harness that energy are not renewable! The batteries and the concrete required are not renewable— for example, concrete requires sand. We’re running out of the kind of sand that’s needed to make concrete and these wind towers are enormous structures made of concrete. The lithium and cobalt needed to make these batteries are not renewable! All this drives me absolutely crazy. The name “renewable” is a complete misnomer as is “clean” energy. Oy!
In my humble opinion, science got us into this mess and science will not get us out of it. We have to go back to basics, for example, a plant-based diet, and growing our own food. we have to learn to regulate the interiors of our homes by using less energy. We can do that by building homes in a way that maximizes natural energy sources, and do simple things like use less heat in the winter by wearing layers of clothing; rather than just turning up the thermostat, put on a sweater, as Jimmy Carter suggested.
We also have to renew our spiritual connections to the planet and realize this is our home. This is not just any other spot on the globe that we can move to . In my opinion, the basic move needed is we have to get rid of money, which I have discussed in a previous comment so I won’t go into it here.
One of the primary needs is for education on this issue; instead, we are bombarded with a bunch of BS about renewables and how we’re going to reduce global warming while burning up the planet on a daily basis. Ain’t gonna happen.
Meanwhile, science has given us another little danger to more consumption, namely AI. Science will not save us!!!
I totally understand. The source (energy from the Sun) is renewable but the equipment and infrastructure for "renewables" are not. Your "humble opinion" is spot on. Way of life changes, spiritual renewal are key ingredients for progress. And yes, people are bombarded with BS. But I'm hopeful that enough enlightenment may shine through to save the day. One never knows!
Great article Tony! I note that in your graphic on energy mix they note that they use the "substitution method" for wind and solar. “Substituted primary energy, which converts non-fossil electricity into their ‘input equivalents’: The amount of primary energy that would be needed if they had the same inefficiencies as fossil fuels. This ‘substitution method’ is adopted by the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy, when all data is compared in exajoules.”
This "efficiency factor" 0.4 means the proportion renewable looks 2.5 time bigger than it is. When you look at consumption of electricity you can see how this makes a huge difference overrating the input of renewables.
here is the explanation https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method if you compare OWID producion figures with consumption you will see this huge anomaly and wokes out almost exactly to 2.4 times exageration.
Just read this article about incredibly high bat deaths from wind “farms” (gotta make it sound good). The researcher found a way to reduce the deaths but so far her solution hasn’t been implemented by the wind industry.
“Emma Bennett, an ecologist, has undertaken bird and bat surveys at operating windfarms since 2005. She has estimated bat mortality in Victoria – where there is extensive data – at between 25,000 and 50,000 bats per year.
She said she had been overwhelmed by “the sheer numbers of dead bats I was collecting and identifying” and was driven to find a solution.
The Australasian Bat Society said it supported renewable energy, but the number of bats killed by windfarms was “already unacceptably high and is expected to increase further as more windfarms are being developed”.
The conventional approach is about "managing" the situation to mitigate wildlife losses. No guarantees, unfortunately, in the eventual outcome. The problem is with expansionist growth policies, bats and other wildlife face multiple assaults with cumulative effects that are difficult to measure. I'm amazed as to how few insects fly around night lights these days. It's not hard to imagine why we see so few bats.
Solid analysis, Tony. And good comments re the replaceable (not renewable) infrastructure. Recycling and transport of material is energy intensive. Net energy access p/capita has peaked. Voluntary simplicity is a tiny tail on the Bell Curve, as humans are not an exception to:
The miracle is Nature, which will rebalance human overshoot. 1B might have a shot after that, but many ecologists think that is too optimistic. Around 80% into this is a short section: "Evolutions Automatic Plague Limiter" http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/gambler.pdf
(I think I posted these links before, but new readers might benefit)
Plus there’s the whitenose fungus that has decimated bats—an invasive fungus. I hardly see bats around here—used to see them flying around the street lights at night. Yes, insects are in decline here too. Very sad. So many invasive species thanks to global trade bringing in products from all over. The ash trees are being killed by the invasive Emerald Ash Borer, the lakes choked with invasive Eurasian millefoil, and then there’s the invasive “jumping worms” eating up the forest floor. Cats (an invasive species) killing birds and amphibians etc. Human indifference to all this drives me crazy.
Richard Heinberg offers these excellent remedies! Check these out:
"How We Could Actually Do It, In Seven Concurrent Steps
Step one: Cap global fossil fuel extraction through global treaty, and annually lower the cap. We will not reduce carbon emissions until we reduce fossil fuel usage—it’s just that simple. Rather than trying to do this by adding renewable energy (which so far hasn’t resulted in a lessening of emissions), it makes far more sense simply to limit fossil fuel extraction. I wrote up the basics of a treaty along these lines several years ago in my book, The Oil Depletion Protocol.
Step two: Manage energy demand fairly. Reducing fossil fuel extraction presents a problem. Where will we get the energy required for transition purposes? Realistically, it can only be obtained by repurposing energy we’re currently using for non-transition purposes. That means most people, especially in highly industrialized countries, would have to use significantly less energy, both directly and also indirectly (in terms of energy embedded in products, and in services provided by society, such as road building). To accomplish this with the minimum of societal stress will require a social means of managing energy demand.
The fairest and most direct way to manage energy demand is via quota rationing. Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) is a system designed two decades ago by British economist David Fleming; it rewards energy savers and gently punishes energy guzzlers while ensuring that everyone gets energy they actually need. Every adult would be given an equal free entitlement of TEQs units each week. If you use less than your entitlement of units, you can sell your surplus. If you need more, you can buy them. All trading takes place at a single national price, which will rise and fall in line with demand.
Step three: Manage the public’s material expectations. Persuading people to accept using less energy will be hard, if everyone still wants to use more. Therefore, it will be necessary to manage the public’s expectations. This may sound technocratic and scary, but in fact society has already been managing the public’s expectations for over a century via advertising—which constantly delivers messages encouraging everyone to consume as much as they can. Now we need different messages to set different expectations.
What’s our objective in life? Is it to have as much stuff as possible, or to be happy and secure? Our current economic system assumes the former, and we have instituted an economic goal (constant growth) and an indicator (gross domestic product, or GDP) to help us achieve that goal. But ever-more people using ever-more stuff and energy leads to increased rates of depletion, pollution, and degradation, thereby imperiling the survival of humanity and the rest of the biosphere. In addition, the goal of happiness and security is more in line with cultural traditions and human psychology. If happiness and security are to be our goals, we should adopt indicators that help us achieve them. Instead of GDP, which simply measures the amount of money changing hands in a country annually, we should measure societal success by monitoring human well-being. The tiny country of Bhutan has been doing this for decades with its Gross National Happiness (GNH) indicator, which it has offered as a model for the rest of the world.
Step four: Aim for population decline. If population is always growing while available energy is capped, that means ever-less energy will be available per capita. Even if societies ditch GDP and adopt GNH, the prospect of continually declining energy availability will present adaptive challenges. How can energy scarcity impacts be minimized? The obvious solution: welcome population decline and plan accordingly.
Global population will start to decline sometime during this century. Fertility rates are falling worldwide, and China, Japan, Germany, and many other nations are already seeing population shrinkage. Rather than viewing this as a problem, we should see it as an opportunity. With fewer people, energy decline will be less of a burden on a per capita basis. There are also side benefits: a smaller population puts less pressure on wild nature, and often results in rising wages. We should stop pushing a pro-natalist agenda; ensure that women have the educational opportunities, social standing, security, and access to birth control to make their own childbearing choices; incentivize small families, and aim for the long-term goal of a stable global population closer to the number of people who were alive at the start of the fossil-fuel revolution (even though voluntary population shrinkage will be too slow to help us much in reaching immediate emissions reduction targets).
Step five: Target technological research and development to the transition. Today the main test of any new technology is simply its profitability. However, the transition will require new technologies to meet an entirely different set of criteria, including low-energy operation and minimization of exotic and toxic materials. Fortunately, there is already a subculture of engineers developing low-energy and intermediate technologies that could help run a right-sized circular economy.
Step six: Institute technological triage. Many of our existing technologies don’t meet these new criteria. So, during the transition, we will be letting go of familiar but ultimately destructive and unsustainable machines.
Some energy-guzzling machines—such as gasoline-powered leaf blowers—will be easy to say goodbye to. Commercial aircraft will be harder. Artificial intelligence is an energy guzzler we managed to live without until very recently; perhaps it’s best if we bid it a quick farewell. Cruise ships? Easy: downsize them, replace their engines with sails, and expect to take just one grand voyage during your lifetime. Weapons industries offer plenty of examples of machines we could live without. Of course, giving up some of our labor-saving devices will require us to learn useful skills—which could end up providing us with more exercise. For guidance along these lines, consult the rich literature of technology criticism.
Step seven: Help nature absorb excess carbon. The IPCC is right: if we’re to avert catastrophic climate change we need to capture carbon from the air and sequester it for a long time. But not with machines. Nature already removes and stores enormous amounts of carbon; we just need to help it do more (rather than reducing its carbon-capturing capabilities, which is what humanity is doing now). Reform agriculture to build soil rather than destroy it. Restore ecosystems, including grasslands, wetlands, forests, and coral reefs.
Implementing these seven steps will change everything. The result will be a world that’s less crowded, one where nature is recovering rather than retreating, and one in which people are healthier (because they’re not soaked in pollution) and happier.
Granted, this seven-step program appears politically unachievable today. But that’s largely because humanity hasn’t yet fully faced the failure of our current path of prioritizing immediate profits and comfort above long-term survival—and the consequences of that failure. Given better knowledge of where we’re currently headed, and the alternatives, what is politically impossible today could quickly become inevitable.
Social philosopher Roman Krznaric writes that profound social transformations are often tied to wars, natural disasters, or revolutions. But crisis alone is not positively transformative. There must also be ideas available for different ways to organize society, and social movements energized by those ideas. We have a crisis and (as we have just seen) some good ideas for how to do things differently. Now we need a movement.
Building a movement takes political and social organizing skills, time, and hard work. Even if you don’t have the skills for organizing, you can help the cause by learning what a real energy transition requires and then educating the people you know; by advocating for degrowth or related policies; and by reducing your own energy and materials consumption. Calculate your ecological footprint and shrink it over time, using goals and strategies, and tell your family and friends what you are doing and why.
Even with a new social movement advocating for a real energy transition, there is no guarantee that civilization will emerge from this century of unraveling in a recognizable form. But we all need to understand: this is a fight for survival in which cooperation and sacrifice are required, just as in total war. Until we feel that level of shared urgency, there will be no real energy transition, and little prospect for a desirable human future."
Hemp can replace coal easy and burns 80% cleaner with a sustainable cycle of plants healing the environment breathing in co2, creating oxygen and ozone. hemp is either banned or over regulated because it looks like cannabis but nobody can get high on hemp its ridiculous this plant is suppressed to give fossil fuels an advantage and slow our progress, almost everything can be made biodegradable and better quality from Hemp which is biodegradable! why is hemp farming restricted and people aren't allowed to grow cannabis around the world? climate crisis! priorities cannabis heals so many health problems too meat kills meat industry huge factor in global emissions but one is given an advantage hemp is restricted, cheaper biomass=more cost effective to make biodegradable products cheaper. i made the sustainability documentary Antimatter Future free film on YouTube revolutionary science on propulsion, the kind of science that can change everything with a little investment small scale experiments are not expensive can make more efficient antimatter production in space goals need to be set no goals are set. we even have next level science of warp travel in relation to dark matter dark energy and connection to us navy FOIA info with the UFO videos, those craft are violating everything we know about physics but when you understand the science i have advocated over a decade it makes sense for lots of research. US military takes such research seriously FOIA documents show a HIGH interest in such science where they are willing to release classified documents on showing interest in paying for experiments.
I think this may be one of your best, yet. Such an important topic. How do we get there from here without destroying our natural support systems. Thanks for your work, Tony!
Thanks for amassing all this information, Tony! Amazing job.
I have a big problem with so-called renewables. First of all, they’re not renewable! In what sense are these things renewable? yes, wind is renewable and so is the sunlight (but ironically, we’re getting less sunlight due to the constant rain that’s coming into my area anyway). So yes, wind and sun are there as potentially renewable resources but the infrastructure and the mechanisms to harness that energy are not renewable! The batteries and the concrete required are not renewable— for example, concrete requires sand. We’re running out of the kind of sand that’s needed to make concrete and these wind towers are enormous structures made of concrete. The lithium and cobalt needed to make these batteries are not renewable! All this drives me absolutely crazy. The name “renewable” is a complete misnomer as is “clean” energy. Oy!
In my humble opinion, science got us into this mess and science will not get us out of it. We have to go back to basics, for example, a plant-based diet, and growing our own food. we have to learn to regulate the interiors of our homes by using less energy. We can do that by building homes in a way that maximizes natural energy sources, and do simple things like use less heat in the winter by wearing layers of clothing; rather than just turning up the thermostat, put on a sweater, as Jimmy Carter suggested.
We also have to renew our spiritual connections to the planet and realize this is our home. This is not just any other spot on the globe that we can move to . In my opinion, the basic move needed is we have to get rid of money, which I have discussed in a previous comment so I won’t go into it here.
One of the primary needs is for education on this issue; instead, we are bombarded with a bunch of BS about renewables and how we’re going to reduce global warming while burning up the planet on a daily basis. Ain’t gonna happen.
Meanwhile, science has given us another little danger to more consumption, namely AI. Science will not save us!!!
I totally understand. The source (energy from the Sun) is renewable but the equipment and infrastructure for "renewables" are not. Your "humble opinion" is spot on. Way of life changes, spiritual renewal are key ingredients for progress. And yes, people are bombarded with BS. But I'm hopeful that enough enlightenment may shine through to save the day. One never knows!
“Hope” is the thing with feathers -
That perches in the soul -
And sings the tune without the words -
And never stops - at all -
And sweetest - in the Gale - is heard -
And sore must be the storm -
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm -
I’ve heard it in the chillest land -
And on the strangest Sea -
Yet - never - in Extremity,
It asked a crumb - of me. (Emily Dickinson, 1851)
To support what you say... check out this summary I recently published, which adds more sources to your same conclusions: https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/no-petroleum-and-minerals-no-problem
Much appreciated, Marco. I'll have a look!
Great article Tony! I note that in your graphic on energy mix they note that they use the "substitution method" for wind and solar. “Substituted primary energy, which converts non-fossil electricity into their ‘input equivalents’: The amount of primary energy that would be needed if they had the same inefficiencies as fossil fuels. This ‘substitution method’ is adopted by the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy, when all data is compared in exajoules.”
This "efficiency factor" 0.4 means the proportion renewable looks 2.5 time bigger than it is. When you look at consumption of electricity you can see how this makes a huge difference overrating the input of renewables.
Thank you! Wow, that's getting into a detail that escaped me. Why would they do that? Not sure I understand.
here is the explanation https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method if you compare OWID producion figures with consumption you will see this huge anomaly and wokes out almost exactly to 2.4 times exageration.
Thanks!
Just read this article about incredibly high bat deaths from wind “farms” (gotta make it sound good). The researcher found a way to reduce the deaths but so far her solution hasn’t been implemented by the wind industry.
“Emma Bennett, an ecologist, has undertaken bird and bat surveys at operating windfarms since 2005. She has estimated bat mortality in Victoria – where there is extensive data – at between 25,000 and 50,000 bats per year.
She said she had been overwhelmed by “the sheer numbers of dead bats I was collecting and identifying” and was driven to find a solution.
The Australasian Bat Society said it supported renewable energy, but the number of bats killed by windfarms was “already unacceptably high and is expected to increase further as more windfarms are being developed”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/australia-wind-turbines-simple-tweak-save-bat-lives-study
The conventional approach is about "managing" the situation to mitigate wildlife losses. No guarantees, unfortunately, in the eventual outcome. The problem is with expansionist growth policies, bats and other wildlife face multiple assaults with cumulative effects that are difficult to measure. I'm amazed as to how few insects fly around night lights these days. It's not hard to imagine why we see so few bats.
Solid analysis, Tony. And good comments re the replaceable (not renewable) infrastructure. Recycling and transport of material is energy intensive. Net energy access p/capita has peaked. Voluntary simplicity is a tiny tail on the Bell Curve, as humans are not an exception to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle
The miracle is Nature, which will rebalance human overshoot. 1B might have a shot after that, but many ecologists think that is too optimistic. Around 80% into this is a short section: "Evolutions Automatic Plague Limiter" http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/gambler.pdf
(I think I posted these links before, but new readers might benefit)
Thanks!
Plus there’s the whitenose fungus that has decimated bats—an invasive fungus. I hardly see bats around here—used to see them flying around the street lights at night. Yes, insects are in decline here too. Very sad. So many invasive species thanks to global trade bringing in products from all over. The ash trees are being killed by the invasive Emerald Ash Borer, the lakes choked with invasive Eurasian millefoil, and then there’s the invasive “jumping worms” eating up the forest floor. Cats (an invasive species) killing birds and amphibians etc. Human indifference to all this drives me crazy.
It's driving a lot of us crazy. What a mess! We need to enjoy what we can of nature and speak out. Small consolation but important.
Richard Heinberg offers these excellent remedies! Check these out:
"How We Could Actually Do It, In Seven Concurrent Steps
Step one: Cap global fossil fuel extraction through global treaty, and annually lower the cap. We will not reduce carbon emissions until we reduce fossil fuel usage—it’s just that simple. Rather than trying to do this by adding renewable energy (which so far hasn’t resulted in a lessening of emissions), it makes far more sense simply to limit fossil fuel extraction. I wrote up the basics of a treaty along these lines several years ago in my book, The Oil Depletion Protocol.
Step two: Manage energy demand fairly. Reducing fossil fuel extraction presents a problem. Where will we get the energy required for transition purposes? Realistically, it can only be obtained by repurposing energy we’re currently using for non-transition purposes. That means most people, especially in highly industrialized countries, would have to use significantly less energy, both directly and also indirectly (in terms of energy embedded in products, and in services provided by society, such as road building). To accomplish this with the minimum of societal stress will require a social means of managing energy demand.
The fairest and most direct way to manage energy demand is via quota rationing. Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) is a system designed two decades ago by British economist David Fleming; it rewards energy savers and gently punishes energy guzzlers while ensuring that everyone gets energy they actually need. Every adult would be given an equal free entitlement of TEQs units each week. If you use less than your entitlement of units, you can sell your surplus. If you need more, you can buy them. All trading takes place at a single national price, which will rise and fall in line with demand.
Step three: Manage the public’s material expectations. Persuading people to accept using less energy will be hard, if everyone still wants to use more. Therefore, it will be necessary to manage the public’s expectations. This may sound technocratic and scary, but in fact society has already been managing the public’s expectations for over a century via advertising—which constantly delivers messages encouraging everyone to consume as much as they can. Now we need different messages to set different expectations.
What’s our objective in life? Is it to have as much stuff as possible, or to be happy and secure? Our current economic system assumes the former, and we have instituted an economic goal (constant growth) and an indicator (gross domestic product, or GDP) to help us achieve that goal. But ever-more people using ever-more stuff and energy leads to increased rates of depletion, pollution, and degradation, thereby imperiling the survival of humanity and the rest of the biosphere. In addition, the goal of happiness and security is more in line with cultural traditions and human psychology. If happiness and security are to be our goals, we should adopt indicators that help us achieve them. Instead of GDP, which simply measures the amount of money changing hands in a country annually, we should measure societal success by monitoring human well-being. The tiny country of Bhutan has been doing this for decades with its Gross National Happiness (GNH) indicator, which it has offered as a model for the rest of the world.
Step four: Aim for population decline. If population is always growing while available energy is capped, that means ever-less energy will be available per capita. Even if societies ditch GDP and adopt GNH, the prospect of continually declining energy availability will present adaptive challenges. How can energy scarcity impacts be minimized? The obvious solution: welcome population decline and plan accordingly.
Global population will start to decline sometime during this century. Fertility rates are falling worldwide, and China, Japan, Germany, and many other nations are already seeing population shrinkage. Rather than viewing this as a problem, we should see it as an opportunity. With fewer people, energy decline will be less of a burden on a per capita basis. There are also side benefits: a smaller population puts less pressure on wild nature, and often results in rising wages. We should stop pushing a pro-natalist agenda; ensure that women have the educational opportunities, social standing, security, and access to birth control to make their own childbearing choices; incentivize small families, and aim for the long-term goal of a stable global population closer to the number of people who were alive at the start of the fossil-fuel revolution (even though voluntary population shrinkage will be too slow to help us much in reaching immediate emissions reduction targets).
Step five: Target technological research and development to the transition. Today the main test of any new technology is simply its profitability. However, the transition will require new technologies to meet an entirely different set of criteria, including low-energy operation and minimization of exotic and toxic materials. Fortunately, there is already a subculture of engineers developing low-energy and intermediate technologies that could help run a right-sized circular economy.
Step six: Institute technological triage. Many of our existing technologies don’t meet these new criteria. So, during the transition, we will be letting go of familiar but ultimately destructive and unsustainable machines.
Some energy-guzzling machines—such as gasoline-powered leaf blowers—will be easy to say goodbye to. Commercial aircraft will be harder. Artificial intelligence is an energy guzzler we managed to live without until very recently; perhaps it’s best if we bid it a quick farewell. Cruise ships? Easy: downsize them, replace their engines with sails, and expect to take just one grand voyage during your lifetime. Weapons industries offer plenty of examples of machines we could live without. Of course, giving up some of our labor-saving devices will require us to learn useful skills—which could end up providing us with more exercise. For guidance along these lines, consult the rich literature of technology criticism.
Step seven: Help nature absorb excess carbon. The IPCC is right: if we’re to avert catastrophic climate change we need to capture carbon from the air and sequester it for a long time. But not with machines. Nature already removes and stores enormous amounts of carbon; we just need to help it do more (rather than reducing its carbon-capturing capabilities, which is what humanity is doing now). Reform agriculture to build soil rather than destroy it. Restore ecosystems, including grasslands, wetlands, forests, and coral reefs.
Implementing these seven steps will change everything. The result will be a world that’s less crowded, one where nature is recovering rather than retreating, and one in which people are healthier (because they’re not soaked in pollution) and happier.
Granted, this seven-step program appears politically unachievable today. But that’s largely because humanity hasn’t yet fully faced the failure of our current path of prioritizing immediate profits and comfort above long-term survival—and the consequences of that failure. Given better knowledge of where we’re currently headed, and the alternatives, what is politically impossible today could quickly become inevitable.
Social philosopher Roman Krznaric writes that profound social transformations are often tied to wars, natural disasters, or revolutions. But crisis alone is not positively transformative. There must also be ideas available for different ways to organize society, and social movements energized by those ideas. We have a crisis and (as we have just seen) some good ideas for how to do things differently. Now we need a movement.
Building a movement takes political and social organizing skills, time, and hard work. Even if you don’t have the skills for organizing, you can help the cause by learning what a real energy transition requires and then educating the people you know; by advocating for degrowth or related policies; and by reducing your own energy and materials consumption. Calculate your ecological footprint and shrink it over time, using goals and strategies, and tell your family and friends what you are doing and why.
Even with a new social movement advocating for a real energy transition, there is no guarantee that civilization will emerge from this century of unraveling in a recognizable form. But we all need to understand: this is a fight for survival in which cooperation and sacrifice are required, just as in total war. Until we feel that level of shared urgency, there will be no real energy transition, and little prospect for a desirable human future."
Full article: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2024-08-22/what-would-a-real-renewable-energy-transition-look-like/?fbclid=IwY2xjawE1eZZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHfXPExdyJ-ehUVM5rbUER1QGhwyW-1dEtdDdjuX25WYiboUjQ0pu4spNHg_aem_kcTZ1uUvJWvI-JocRWulrg
all this could and should be achieved by starting with the "scaling down" of MONEY: https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/there-is-only-one-thing-that-really
I'd certainly like to learn more about that.
Thanks! Any comment on the proposal will be very welcome
Hemp can replace coal easy and burns 80% cleaner with a sustainable cycle of plants healing the environment breathing in co2, creating oxygen and ozone. hemp is either banned or over regulated because it looks like cannabis but nobody can get high on hemp its ridiculous this plant is suppressed to give fossil fuels an advantage and slow our progress, almost everything can be made biodegradable and better quality from Hemp which is biodegradable! why is hemp farming restricted and people aren't allowed to grow cannabis around the world? climate crisis! priorities cannabis heals so many health problems too meat kills meat industry huge factor in global emissions but one is given an advantage hemp is restricted, cheaper biomass=more cost effective to make biodegradable products cheaper. i made the sustainability documentary Antimatter Future free film on YouTube revolutionary science on propulsion, the kind of science that can change everything with a little investment small scale experiments are not expensive can make more efficient antimatter production in space goals need to be set no goals are set. we even have next level science of warp travel in relation to dark matter dark energy and connection to us navy FOIA info with the UFO videos, those craft are violating everything we know about physics but when you understand the science i have advocated over a decade it makes sense for lots of research. US military takes such research seriously FOIA documents show a HIGH interest in such science where they are willing to release classified documents on showing interest in paying for experiments.