Yes, of course eco-related scams are a thing. If you really want to follow the money, there is a hell of a lot more profit involved for much larger corporations, by convincing people that anthropogenic global warming is not happening.
That's possible.
Assuming it is happening (and that's a big assumption), rather than trying to get people to live lifestyles akin to monkeys in Siberia, why don't you promote nuclear energy and a reduction in regulation making it economically competitive with coal?
Why would I favor nuclear in particular? Solar and wind are already economically competitive. If greenhouse pollution was appropriately discouraged, the market could probably be left to sort out the best way to supply electricity, and that would likely include some nuclear. Personally, I'd rather be self-sufficient through small scale renewable electricity production.
Anthropogenic global warming is assuming the least. The world's scientists have had over three decades to disprove the standard theory and become fantastically famous doing it - I think it's here to stay.
Interfering with the wind is environmentally harmful, solar blankets vast areas and is largely useless in northern climates during winter which is when most of the energy is needed. Both of those require massive batteries (which are potentially polluting to manufacture and recycle, so too are solar panels), as well as large footprints.
three decades to disprove the standard theory and become
De-platformed and black-balled.
It's so politicized that nobody dares to challenge the scamming, nevermind the science.
(post is archived)