The advantages of change, climate and otherwise

Foreword – Humanity has made tremendous strides over the last two centuries in energy, medical and other technologies – greatly improving living standards and life spans for billions of people. But meanwhile, says Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy president John Shanahan, far too many foundations and organizations, segments of the media and individuals have tried to prevent progress. They want to keep energy and mineral treasures in the ground and insist that nothing mankind does is safe enough. They want an undisturbed, unpopulated world for themselves and their friends, with them in control.

As a result, billions of people still do not have reliable energy supplies, decent economies, increased prosperity and opportunity, or better education, healthcare systems, drinking water, wastewater systems and solid waste management. In claiming that six of the ten most polluted cities in the world are in developed countries, and a number of countries are unlikely to survive manmade climate change, two recent “Eco Experts” reports perpetuate and build on these dangerous ecological myths. The facts offer a better way to future health and prosperity for billions more people, Shanahan argues. – Paul Driessen

As the world and climate change yet again –

Who is helping to create a better world? Who is determined to hold everyone back?

John Shanahan

The world has changed tremendously since the early 1800s, as the growing use of fossil fuels made life on Earth increasingly better for most of us. People have far better, longer lives. Economies are better, stronger, more vibrant, more adaptable. Health care, education, transportation have improved greatly. Most governments are more stable and peaceful. There is less human pressure on the environment.

Achieving these milestones of course required governments, businesses, professionals, teachers and students working for these goals – not extreme environmentalists constantly protesting and trying to delay or block every technological advance.

Sadly, since the 1960s, many foundations and organizations, segments of the media and many individuals have worked to prevent progress. They want to keep energy and mineral treasures in the ground and insist that nothing mankind does is safe enough. They want an undisturbed, unpopulated world for themselves and their friends. Extreme environmentalists seem determined to control the world.

It seems to make no difference to them that billions of people would suffer and die without the benefits of fossil fuels and their tremendous array of life-enhancing and life-saving byproducts.

Four organizations are leading global campaigns to prevent the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy: the Union of Concerned Scientists,Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Many others gladly and proudly join them.

In determined opposition to these inhumane efforts are four organizations that help lead efforts to make a better world through use of technology: the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, Cornwall Alliance, Nuclear Africa and Association des Ecologistes pour le Nucléaire. Many others have joined them in seeking improvements for people and planet.

Many individuals have contributed to making a better world through the use of fossil fuel and nuclear power. The world owes them a debt of gratitude. More than eight hundred of their articles, PowerPoint Presentations, books and videos are available here.

Sadly, after decades at the forefront of assisting humanity, the United States and Europe have largely abandoned their nuclear energy related help for the rest of the world. Along with the United Nations, World Bank and various multi-national development banks, they do not even support large-scale coal, natural gas or hydroelectric generation projects. For at least a decade, their financial and technological assistance has been centered around unreliable, weather-dependent wind, solar and biofuel projects.

Meanwhile, ironically, China and Russia are making tremendous progress in improving the lives of their own citizens and people in other countries – albeit amid extensive military buildups, aggressive territorial expansions, and onerous demands and restrictions on their client countries.

Russia’s Rosatom and Gazprom are providing extensive energy and support projects for other countries. China is using its new energy expertise and economic strength to gain influence and access resources around the world, to meets its own critical energy and raw material needs.

Yes, the world is changing rapidly. Populations are growing and becoming wealthier, healthier and more restive. Technologies are advancing at an unprecedented pace. Earth’s climate is changing, mostly due to complex natural causes.

Government and economic leadership must change with them. The best future for most people includes stable governments, strong economies, freedom, equality, respect for people and the environment, and better planning for mega urban centers. It can be done and will make the world a much better place.

However, if extremist environmental organizations and hostile outside forces continue to gain a death grip on free economies, countries will fade away. New powers will replace those that have existed in different forms for hundreds or thousands of years. Conquests have driven continental and global change before and will be attempted again. Overpowering from beyond their borders will bring some countries down, while collapse from within will doom others.

The Eco Experts promote solar panels and write grand reports (see their blog) on how mankind is supposedly causing large scale toxic pollution that will lead to catastrophic manmade climate change and end human and wildlife habitability in many parts of the world. Too many in the media – even Forbes magazine – promote their messages and give them far more recognition than they deserve or could ever get on their own.

The result is that more and more people will be starved of the reliable, affordable energy they need to improve and sustain their lives and living standards. It is but one example of many extreme environmentalist efforts to weaken the USA and Europe. It will deprive the world of help from outstanding pillars of democracy, freedom and economic prosperity.

A recent Eco Experts report identifies what they say are the ten most polluted cities in the world. The list includes Paris, Istanbul, Moscow,Shanghai, Guangzhou and Los Angeles. While very few cities are as clean as Zurich, these six cities have prospering economies, great tourism, impressive architecture and cultural attractions – and generally very clean air and water.

The Eco Experts report is highly misleading and largely ignores real urban problems. In the 1950s, London and Pittsburgh had dirtier air than Paris or Istanbul ever had. As Cornwall Alliance spokesman Calvin Beisner notes in a devastating critique, the “Eco Experts” report displays an almost sophomoric grasp of real-world urban problems in developed and developing countries.

What are real leading factors for human suffering and shortening of life expectancy in urban areas? Evil dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong), corrupt politicians, thoughtless businesses (Ken Saro-Wiwa) – and eco-imperialists (as Paul Driessen has documented). They are main reasons billions of people still do not have reliable energy supplies, decent economies, increased prosperity and opportunity, or better education, healthcare systems, drinking water, wastewater systems and solid waste management.

Extreme environmental groups focus on very small amounts of extremely small airborne particles and carbon dioxide, the non-toxic trace gas that is essential for nearly all plant and animal life. This is totally wrong. Imposing wind and solar energy to replace fossil fuels and nuclear makes countries energy weak – and causes suffering, chaos and premature deaths by the millions. By contrast, countries that stick with fossil fuels and nuclear power become and remain energy strong.

A second Eco Experts report is equally outlandish. This one maps out their forecast of countries that will supposedly not survive man-made climate change. Going around the globe at the same latitude one might expect similar results. But there is no consistency of their color coding for risk level. Greenland shows no data, while equally empty Northern Canada next to it has the lowest risk level.

Similarly, Bolivia, Zimbabwe, Madagascar and Australia are at about the same latitude south. Australia, already a very dry climate that until recently was switching to unreliable wind and solar power is classified as having the least risk, while lush but energy-poor Bolivia, Zimbabwe and Madagascar are predicted to be at much higher risk of failure to survive supposed man-made climate change.

Who buys solar panels from Eco Experts, much less accepts their unsound reports on toxic pollution and country collapse from man-made climate change? Driessen presents a far better analysis of what went right and what is going wrong in his recent talk, “How Prosperity Can Save the Planet.” It’s a fascinating tour through the modern history of energy, health and prosperity. I recommend it highly.

John Shanahan is a civil engineer and president of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy-USA of Denver, Colorado.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 7, 2018 1:50 pm

“They want an undisturbed, unpopulated world for themselves and their friends, with them in control.”

Thats the delusion, and

“There is less human pressure on the environment.”

Thats the enabling lie.

steve case
Reply to  RyanS
September 7, 2018 2:59 pm

Bingo! Me and the wife go on travel tours a lot of them to see the natural beauty of our world, and the groups we enjoy these sojourns with are loaded with liberals. I generally keep my mouth shut.

Reply to  RyanS
September 7, 2018 4:17 pm

Taking the environmentalists at their word, is now delusional.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  RyanS
September 8, 2018 12:08 am

That’s rich coming from a delusional liar! Do you have any technical qualifications or knowledge, or do you just regurgitate the drivel you’ve been hand fed by your keepers?

Reply to  Alan the Brit
September 8, 2018 1:08 am

Come off it Alan, stick to funny.

September 7, 2018 2:03 pm

Now Australian prime minister Scott Morrison dumping Paris agreement

Reply to  michel
September 7, 2018 3:25 pm

Sounds like they are still going to lie and ignore anything they don’t like. They are just trying to sound more rational, and failing at it.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  michel
September 8, 2018 12:10 am

Not quite! They don’t get it wrong they just preach bullsh1t driven by the ideological belief systems! Essentially, anyone who disagrees with them is wrong!

September 7, 2018 3:11 pm

When I was young, people talked about progress as a good thing. Society could continue to get better. Then, somehow, the wheels seemed to come off the idea.

Wikipedia has a pretty good primer on progress. link

IMHO, progress should not mean abandoning the things that give our lives meaning in the name of materialism and nihilism. From a brief scan of the Wiki article, the following resonates most closely with me.

Sociologist Robert Nisbet said that “No single idea has been more important than … the Idea of Progress in Western civilization for three thousand years”,[25] and defines five “crucial premises” of the idea of progress:
– value of the past
– nobility of Western civilization
– worth of economic/technological growth
– faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason
– intrinsic importance and worth of life on earth

Straight materialism, as the left seems to advocate, gives people’s lives no meaning and is really pretty grim.

I must say that I am overjoyed that Jordan Peterson has come to the defense of Western Civilization. I really hope it is the start of a movement. Then we can get back to actually making things better for more people.

Reply to  commieBob
September 8, 2018 5:40 am

I would second the mention of Jordan Peterson as a refreshing hero.
His interview on Ch4 by Cathie Newman is a masterclass in how to deal with a bullying interviewer who twists what he says and hopes to get him to agree to things that he did not say.
A. He listens
B. He thinks
C. He corrects any misquotation
D. He makes his contribution to the discussion.

He is also an object lesson to dealing with the ‘shouters’ who do not like any idea that conflicts with their own , and literally or metaphorically shout you down. Typically those who think ‘my mind is made up, do not confuse me with the facts’.

Reply to  commieBob
September 8, 2018 6:00 pm

commieBob, If you look at the strategy and tactics of the Left in the west they set out to attack and destroy those five “crucial premises.” Part of their attacks come from Stalinist and Maoist tactics from the 1930-1970. Remember the main goal of Mao’s Cultural Revolution was to destroy the past, destroy China’s history.

In the USA the Left attack the founding fathers, the Constitution and Declaration. Even while attacking the foundations of the country they actually use the Constitution and Bill of Rights to rip at religion, basics of life, basic right of self protection, etc and now even science.

John Tillman
September 7, 2018 3:19 pm

Bolivia’s proven natural gas reserves rank 45th in the world, but Evo nationalized them.

Numero Uno Russia has ~332,000 m^3 per capita; Bolivia a bit more than 25,000.

September 7, 2018 3:21 pm

Interesting that the countries “most at risk from climate change” are most at risk for continued failure irregardless of the climate.

michael hart
September 7, 2018 4:10 pm

“Who is helping to create a better world? Who is determined to hold everyone back?”

Taking just one section of the population (university students), I observed that the former more often tended to study Medicine, Engineering and the hard Sciences, whilst the latter were more often PPE, scociologists, media studies, gender studies, etcetera.

Sure, not always the case, but you get the picture. Saying you want to save humanity/the planet, or telling others to do so, is cheap talk.
Actually doing something about it is rather harder.

John Tillman
September 7, 2018 4:19 pm

One of the most profound discoveries of science since the beginning of its revolution in AD 1543 is the fact that “life, the universe and everything” are constantly changing.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
September 7, 2018 6:51 pm

Although it was over 100 years into the Scientific Revolution before the fact of constant change was first barely glimpsed.

Reply to  John Tillman
September 8, 2018 12:44 am

And the fact that humans are often irrationally against every bit of change. We are pretty conservative at the end. That’s the thing about climate change. Just the idea that the climate could be changing is automatically perceived as being bad, while ignoring whether the change is actually good or bad.

John Tillman
Reply to  Fredar
September 8, 2018 10:33 am

And yet people often want the weather to change, when it’s too hot, cold, wet, windy, smoky or dusty.

Steve O
September 7, 2018 4:29 pm

If climate change is coming, people in poor countries need access to inexpensive electricity — not windmills. And developed nations need to save their resources for adapting to the changes, and not blow the wad on meaningless gestures and lame attempts at global climate engineering. If we’re going to have to move major cities inland, we’d better not have spent everything on solar power plants.

September 7, 2018 6:15 pm

“As a result, billions of people still do not have reliable energy supplies, decent economies, increased prosperity and opportunity, or better education, healthcare systems, drinking water, wastewater systems and solid waste management.”
It’s gonna have to be bottom up, not top down.

September 7, 2018 6:35 pm

Speaking of the advantages of change …
It’s based on modeling, so I’m skeptical, but it turns the AGW argument on its head (CO2 increases have prevented the next Ice Age from starting), so it’ll at least be useful in making people stop and think. Or choking on the dissonance.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  LarryD
September 8, 2018 12:16 am

I appreciate your sentiment, but seeing that when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere in the geological past, when the Earth was in the middle of an Ice-Age, does not suggest nor imply to me the gas would stop an Ice-Age!

September 7, 2018 6:57 pm

The Green’s energy policies have been a costly and ineffective failure, and this was easily predictable – and in fact IT WAS PREDICTED in an article written by my-co-authors and me in 2002, as follows:


PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals, the Globe and Mail and La Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae.

Wind and solar power do NOT contribute significant economic (dispatchable) electric power to the grid. This is a simple, proved fact, yet tens of trillions of dollars have been squandered globally on this green energy scam.





But… maybe the Greens are not all that stupid – maybe these millions of premature deaths were their intention all along.


Quotations from

It is truly amazing that these people actually believe they are ethical, and of above-average intelligence.
Regards, Allan
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies
“One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
Phasing out the human race will solve every
problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
– Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower,
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

September 7, 2018 7:08 pm

After you have read my above post, I challenge any of you to still believe that the leaders of the Green movement are good people.

The actions and words of the green leadership prove that they are self-absorbed, delusional sociopaths/psychopaths, intent on the destruction of humanity.

And like many megalomaniacs, such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, they have attracted a huge following of devoted minions, imbeciles who believe everything their leaders say and repeat it to themselves and others until it becomes their truth-of-choice – their unquestioning belief in the Big Green Lie.

September 7, 2018 7:16 pm

Diversification of the energy supply, by decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing other energy production methods will make our energy system more robust. Solar, wind and nuclear will decrease our dependence on fossil fuel.

Reply to  David Dirkse
September 7, 2018 7:21 pm

Based on your posts, it appears to everyone Allan that all you are is a shill for the fossil fuel industry. Do you think hydro is bad?

Reply to  David Dirkse
September 7, 2018 7:22 pm

Allan, nuclear is good because it doesn’t emit CO2

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
September 7, 2018 7:26 pm

Except of course for the concrete used in building nuke power plants.

Granted, less than during the operation of coal plants, and recoverable with expenditure of energy in decommissioning.

Please don’t get me wrong. I favor advanced nuke power. But wish to remind readers that there is no free lunch in energy generation.

Maybe breeder reactors.

And of course, more CO2 so far has been a good thing.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  David Dirkse
September 8, 2018 12:28 am

“Allan, nuclear is good because it doesn’t emit CO2”

Well, not that much!

Reply to  David Dirkse
September 7, 2018 7:30 pm

Anyone who doesn’t agree that fossil fuels need to be banned, is a shill for the fossil fuel industry.

Once again, David demonstrates that he has no interest in thinking for himself.

Reply to  MarkW
September 8, 2018 2:22 am

Is you life “fossil-fuel free” then ?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone ….

Reply to  JBNL1972
September 8, 2018 4:08 am

Not all fossil fuels are created equal – a few have major downsides.


I received an award in March 2018 from the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) for averting a potential major sour gas disaster in SE Calgary.

The new foreign owners of the Mazeppa project were running 40% H2S critical sour gas within one mile of populous SE Calgary suburbs and had ceased the required monthly injection of anti-corrosion chemicals into the pipelines seven months earlier, which was extremely dangerous.

Fortunately, I was familiar with the project from decades ago (I was GM of Engineering for a company that formerly owned this project and about 20 others), and someone called me with this vital information. The amazing coincidence is my confidential informant did not know of my history with this project – he just wanted to talk to someone about his concerns.

The staff at the project were afraid to report the dangerous situation because they feared physical retaliation from the foreign owners, who they believed were violent thugs.

H2S is heavier than air and hugs the ground, and less than 0.1% is instantly fatal. I investigated, reported the matter, followed-up and it was made safe. I later learned that some of the critical sour gas pipelines had already experienced minor perforations and leaks.

Potential loss of life in a major discharge of H2S could have totaled up to 250,000 people, wiping out the SE quadrant of Calgary.

The reprimand by the Alberta Energy Regulator against the foreign owners is the most severe in Alberta history.

Reply to  JBNL1972
September 8, 2018 9:49 am

Good point, but direct it to Dirkse.

Reply to  JBNL1972
September 8, 2018 10:54 am

JBN, you didn’t read all of my post, did you.

Reply to  JBNL1972
September 9, 2018 10:44 am

JBN, MarkW needed to add a sarcasm warning to his first sentence. I have debated those in the CAGW camp for as long as the issue has been out there. I have debated the environmental community even longer. Few if any in the CAGW camp have gone or will ever go fossil-fuel free. First they would have to stop using their computer. Just like the environmentalists love to preach what other should do, few live or even understand what it takes to leave a small environmental foot print. So far I have met less than a double handful of people that came close, most could not exceed or even come close to my living standards or on the ground environmental record.

Reply to  MarkW
September 8, 2018 3:52 am

Thank you Mark – DavidD is a green minion, a worshiper of scoundrels.

I wrote above:
“And like many megalomaniacs, such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, they have attracted a huge following of devoted minions, imbeciles who believe everything their leaders say and repeat it to themselves and others until it becomes their truth-of-choice – their unquestioning belief in the Big Green Lie.”

Green minions have no intellects, individually or collectively – they appear to have suffered a mass lobotomy – they cannot think, and can only repeat a series of false mantras called Al-Gore-ithms.

Examples of “false-mantra” Al-Gore-ithms include:

“Increasing wind and solar energy production will make our energy system more robust.”
.FALSE. Wind and solar power typically destabilize electrical grids.

“Solar and wind energy will decrease our dependence on fossil fuels.”
.FALSE. Wind and solar power often increase fossil fuel consumption.

“Are you a shill for the fossil fuel industry?”
.FALSE. Are you a shill for the wind and solar power industry?

The great American philosopher George Carlin explained green stupidity thus:
“Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!”

Reply to  David Dirkse
September 7, 2018 7:29 pm

How the heck do you make a system more “robust” by relying on fuels that aren’t reliable.

That’s delusional thinking.

1) There is no need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, we’ve got enough for hundreds of years.
2) Even if we did, we’ve got nuclear.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
September 7, 2018 7:35 pm


Using unreliable sources of energy makes the system far less robust.

As should be obvious.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  David Dirkse
September 8, 2018 12:27 am

Scratch out the first two & just leave nuclear in, the others contribute next to nothing where reliable energy is concerned! Any system whereby a so-called free energy source such as wind & solar, that by default requires massive amounts of natural gas/coal to be burned, (producing next to no energy supplies other than keeping the power plant’s lights on,) is a failure! On top of which, many of my Socialist friends think wind & solar are marvels of the modern world, but are, certainly in the UK, built on land owned by wealthy landowners who get paid huge amounts of revenue forthe privilage from the taxpayer! Talk about latter day Robber Barons!

September 8, 2018 3:16 am

The problem, good people, is that green energy schemes do not work – I wish they did – but grid-connected wind and solar power FAIL based on high-cost and intermittency – and there is no practical super-battery in most situations to solve the problem.

Energy is my area of expertise and I have a very successful predictive track record. I have two engineering degrees and have studied this subject for many decades.

Fully 85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels, and the rest is hydro and nuclear. Green energy would be near-zero except for massive wasted subsidies and use mandates. Only a few places have enough hydro to provide their needs, and greens hate hydro. The only practical alternative is nuclear, and the greens hate nuclear too.

Without fossil fuels, most people in the developed world would just freeze and starve to death. This means you and your family.

There is strong evidence that climate is relatively INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 and there is no real global warming crisis. The only major impact of increasing CO2 is greatly-increased plant and crop yields – and any resulting warming will be mild and net-beneficial.

Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity at this time – Excess Winter Mortality totals about 2 million souls per year.
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015

Intelligent people should strongly reject green rhetoric – it is a false-front for the far-left’s political and economic agendas, which will lead to enormous human suffering and death.

The far-left killed over 200 million people in the 20th Century – do we really have to do all this again?

That is the deadly path the far-left and the phony greens are trying to take us on:
“Trust us! This time it will be different!” No, it won’t!

Regards, Allan


Fossil fuels still provide 85% of Global Primary Energy, whereas Hydro is 7% and Nuclear has dropped to 4%. This “Conventional Power Generation“ totals 96%, and Renewables have increased to 4%.

Despite tens of trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies, Renewables still provide only 4% of global primary energy, and CO2 emissions have INCREASED in the countries that have introduced the most Renewables. This is because Renewables are not green and do not produce much useful (dispatchable) energy. Renewables are too intermittent and require almost 100% spinning reserve (backup) of Conventional Power Generation to fill-in when the wind does not blow or the Sun does not shine.

This “4% Renewables” would drop to near-zero if our idiot politicians did not force renewables into the grid ahead of useful, dispatchable power – this is another huge hidden subsidy for Renewables. Grid-connected wind and solar power are harmful, because they drive up energy costs AND also seriously destabilize the grid. South Australia has experienced two long outages caused by wind power.

In Alberta, our imbecilic politicians are phasing out our coal plants, and replacing them with natural gas-fired units. While gas-fired power plants are much better than wind power, our energy prices are going to increase sharply and become more volatile in the future, because gas prices are at historic lows and will almost certainly increase.

The NDP’s argument against Alberta coal is “air pollution” – but ALL our coal-fired plants have pollution controls and all air pollutants from all these coal plants equal ~1/1000 of the air pollution we experience each year from forest fires. In effect, all we have to do is defer ONE forest fire per year (0.1%), and we can keep our coal plants operating and keep our electrical power costs very low.

The NDP also believe that CO2, essential for all plant and crop growth, is a pollutant. It is not, and it is not causing dangerous global warming. That falsehood is popular among the uneducated and green extremists.

The only measurable impact of increased atmospheric CO2 is significantly increased plant and crop yields.

Andy Ogilvie
September 8, 2018 9:43 am

When I was a kid being described as green meant you were a bit wet behind the ears or a bit thick……nice to see that description is still as valid today 😂

September 9, 2018 10:37 am

Allan, having dealt directly with or with the minions of those you quoted I can assure you that they hate any and all that do not believe as the do. Instead of solving the myriad of “little” problems in the world, which believe is a waste of their “good efforts,” they have decided directing their energies instead at eliminating most humans it is a better use of their time and efforts. Most have little historical perspective. As has been discussed here they have turned environmentalism into a religion and CAGW is their orthodoxy. Eliminate fossil fuels and you will bring down the Western Democracies. I continue to find it fascinating that they preach little about China and India.

Alan the Brit
September 8, 2018 12:05 am

As a Structural Engineer, I will happily listen to a fellow engineer, even if he is civil! (Engineers’ joke)

Eamon Butler
September 8, 2018 3:18 am

Even if we were to fully agree and accept the Alarmist Global warming message, and the need to change our source of energy, Turbines and Panels are NOT the answer.

September 8, 2018 5:32 am

It’s all about COP. Coefficient of Performance. Well before we denude the earth of resources, we WILL develop a fossil fuel replacement that has a COP better than crude oil.

Ian Macdonald
September 8, 2018 11:47 am

I’ve been saying for a while that there is a way forward that should satisfy everyone, and that is to go for advanced nuclear. Not the nuclear we currently use, but a reactor design that avoids the use of pressurised water, zirconium, sodium, or other inflammable or volatile substances in the core. The majority of nuclear accidents have been chemical or physical in nature rather than atomic. The nuclear fuel itself is actually one of the safer components, and the waste problem largely arises through inefficient use of the fuel. Any engine which burns only a part of its fuel spews out pollution. That’s as true of a reactor as it is of a car. Get it to burn 99% of the fuel instead of <1%, and the pollution problem goes away.

Getting people on your side who would normally be your enemies, is one of the master strokes of diplomacy. If us climate disbelievers can nevertheless offer the believers a better way to solve the CO2 issue, one that will demonstratably work, then everyone wins.

Except of course the wind turbine sellers. Well, there's always a few who are never happy.

September 15, 2018 9:11 pm

The argument for fission isn’t low CO2 emissions all included, it’s low everything emissions. Low fine particulate, NOx… (all included means with uranium mining, refining, etc.)

Low CO2 means low fossil fuel input, low fossil fuel transport, etc.

Low fossil means low dependency on imports for countries without local extraction.

Low volume of fissile fuel means huge storage capacity of fuel (practically infinite even in the smallest countries). A nation can have extreme storage of fissile fuel.

Extreme storage means low dependency on foreign nations for energy use.

In fact a country that would run off everything useful, every other imported ressource, while sitting on fissile reserve would be dependent on foreign nations for anything except fissile fuel.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights