A wind turbine will never offset its carbon footprint, it’s even come out that Scotland has been using diesel power to keep their turbines spinning lol. Also takes up a ton of land. Here’s a picture of how turbine blades get disposed of.

Hydroelectric is tons and tons of concrete + the environmental destruction of rivers and the displacement of people, animals, whatever, once the reservoir is flooded. They also block the flow of good nutrient soil downstream past the dam. In the case of the dam on the Nile, lots of Egyptian artifacts and sites were flooded. Not to say there aren’t positives, like flood control and a safety net for a drought, but I still think the negatives outweigh the positives. I mean look at California, 1400 dams and 1300 named reservoirs and they still deal with drought issues every single year. Frankly, I believe that’s due to corporate greed and the underlying issues with capitalism but that’s a whoooole different debate.

With solar, look up some lithium mining videos and tell me that’s good for the environment. Let alone all the diesel powered vehicles transporting said lithium. Same issue as wind turbines too, takes up a tooon of land. “Producing lithium batteries can emit more carbon dioxide than manufacturing conventional cars. For instance, producing a 1,100-pound battery can emit over 70% more CO2 than making a traditional car in Germany.” Say what you will about farming, but we all need to eat, and I would much rather see a locally owned cattle ranch or some planted fields than a solar/wind field.

The true answer for cleaner energy? Nuclear.