Fantasy Versus Reality In Woke-Land

From The Manhattan Contrarian

Francis Menton

JP Morgan Chase — it’s hard to find a more “woke” company than that one. Under celebrity CEO Jamie Dimon, JPM in its corporate pronouncements consistently positions itself at the most exquisitely correct end of the politically correct spectrum.

But reality can be tough. In its email of a couple of days ago, the Global Warming Policy Foundation links to JPM’s 2021 Annual Energy Paper. The Paper comes from JPM’s Asset and Wealth Management Group. The lead author is a guy named Michael Cembalest, who appears to have his ear right down on the ground of the global energy business. The bottom line is that all the talk about “deep de-carbonization” of the world economy any time soon is a ridiculous fantasy. Fossil fuels are not going away for a long time, if ever. Carbon emissions into the atmosphere are increasing? You’d better get used to that.

Once again, this “deep de-carbonization” thing is a case of the really “smart” people deceiving you, or maybe themselves; or more likely, both.

For starters, let’s consider some of the extreme wokeism that issues from the executive suites in JPMville. This is not limited to matters of “climate,” but extends as well to other usual topics, like for example “systemic racism.” On that subject, here is JPM CEO Jamie Dimon, as quoted in Forbes in October 2020:

“Systemic racism is a tragic part of America’s history. We can do more and do better to break down systems that have propagated racism and widespread economic inequality, especially for Black and Latinx people. It’s long past time that society addresses racial inequities in a more tangible, meaningful way.”

Meanwhile, over in the climate arena, JPM’s high-level pronouncements totally buy into the idea that we’re going to save the planet by financing a bunch of wind turbines, or something. Last October, JPM put out a big statement with the pompous title of “How one of the world’s biggest banks plans to tackle climate change.” Excerpt:

Climate change is among the most urgent problems facing humanity; businesses and governments have an imperative to act. Achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, which aims to restrict a rise in the world’s average temperature, would enable us to take a giant step towards a safer, greener, more sustainable future. . . . For the world to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, there needs to be an acceleration of emerging technologies that are not yet widely commercially available or economically viable. . . . Our company, JPMorgan Chase, announced this month that we will start aligning our financing portfolio to meet the Paris goals.

Then just a couple of weeks ago, on April 15, JPM followed up by announcing a big new plan to “Advance Climate Action and Sustainable Development” with some $2.5 trillion in investments:

JPMorgan Chase aims to finance and facilitate more than $2.5 trillion over 10 years – beginning this year through the end of 2030 – to advance long-term solutions that address climate change and contribute to sustainable development. . . . This long-term target complements the firm’s Paris-aligned financing strategy and will help accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy by encouraging actions that set a path for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050

Wow, that sounds great! Or is it all just a cynical grab for some of the upcoming gusher of government subsidies, with no detectable effect at all on the climate, or even much effect on the use of fossil fuels? For some insights, let’s look at that 2021 Annual Energy Paper. The document is not short (42 pages), and certainly does not fall in the category of “climate skepticism,” but it does contain some notable doses of hard-headed realism that are normally completely lacking in this field.

From the Executive Summary:

Our main focus this year: why is the transition [away from carbon-based fuels] taking so long? Deep decarbonization plans assume massive changes in electric vehicles, electricity transmission grids, industrial energy use and carbon sequestration, but each faces headwinds often not accounted for by energy futurists. As shown below, many prior forecasts of the renewable transition were too ambitious since they ignored energy density, intermittency and the complex realities of incumbent energy systems. . . .

Maybe those “energy futurist” people are just kidding themselves?

President Biden just announced a new GHG emissions target: a 50% decline by 2030 vs a 2005 baseline. This very ambitious target implies a decarbonization pace in the next 10 years that’s four times faster than in the last 15 years. Even with the amount of money the administration plans to dedicate to the task, it’s an enormous hurdle. . . .

The even more important and larger question: even if the US succeeds, what about everyone else? Over the last 25 years, the developed world shifted much of its carbon-intensive manufacturing of steel, cement, ammonia and plastics to the developing world. . . .

Loudly proclaiming that you have achieved some (small) decreases in carbon emissions while offshoring most of your energy-intensive manufacturing — That’s one good way to fool yourself.

The world gets more energy efficient every year, but levels of emissions keep rising. . . .

It’s those pesky Chinese and Indians and Africans who think they ought to be able to have electricity and cars and air conditioning just like you do.

How is the global energy transition going? Taken together, the aggregate impact of nuclear, hydroelectric and solar/wind generation reduced global reliance on fossil fuels from ~95% of primary energy in 1975 to ~85% in 2020. In other words, energy transitions take a long time and lots of money. . . . [T]he IEA still projects that 70%-75% of global primary energy consumption may be met via fossil fuels in the year 2040. Why don’t rapid wind and solar price declines translate into faster decarbonization? As we will discuss, renewable energy is still mostly used to generate electricity, and electricity as a share of final energy consumption on a global basis is still just 18%.

Yes, all those thousands of wind turbines and solar panels blanketing the landscape are at best hoping to replace a minority of a sector that itself only represents 18% of energy use to begin with. Why are we spending (wasting) these many trillions of dollars again?

Getting beyond the Executive Summary and into the details of the Paper, there are many great tidbits. A section on “Transmission Realities” shows how bringing “renewable” power to where it’s needed runs into the same roadblocks from environmentalists as all other energy development:

While MIT and Princeton assume rapid growth in transmission infrastructure, actual development can be a hornet’s nest of siting challenges and legal costs even when projects are eventually built after years of planning. Let’s start with HydroQuebec’s plan to sell hydropower to the US. . . . Take Northern Pass, a 1.1 GW transmission project to bring hydropower from Quebec to the Northeast through New Hampshire (80% via existing right-of-ways or underground lines). . . . [A] New Hampshire siting committee blocked Northern Pass. . . . Now Massachusetts is trying to import Canadian hydropower through Maine (“New England Clean Energy Connect”) but has already run into an injunction due to opposition from environmental groups. . . .

And so on and on and on.

Then there’s the Holy Grail of carbon capture and storage, sometimes known as CCS. Hey, why not just take all of this dangerous CO2 and bury it somewhere in the ground? The Paper looks at some of the practical realities:

After 20 years of planning and conjecture, by the end of 2020 carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities stored just 0.1% of global CO2 emissions. . . . The highest ratio in the history of science: the number of academic papers written on CCS divided by real-life implementation of it. . . . The Princeton CCS buildout, just to sequester an amount equal to 15% of current US GHG emissions, would require infrastructure whose throughput volume would be higher than the volume of oil flowing through US distribution and refining pipelines, a system which has taken over 100 years to build. . . . Sequestering 25% of global CO2 through direct air capture would require 25%-40% of the world’s electricity generation plus 11%-17% of its primary energy.

And then there’s my favorite line in the whole Paper, from page 28:

We recommend that investors stick with oil & gas for now.

Read the full article here.

5 23 votes
Article Rating
90 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Capitalist-Dad
May 8, 2021 6:16 am

The big question is why self-appointed masterminds, pushing a scam, removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a good idea. Since CO2 is plant food (not a pollutant) these self-appointed geniuses will set off some eco-crisis while pursuing their scam.

n.n
Reply to  Capitalist-Dad
May 8, 2021 6:58 am

Don’t be green, starve the green, go Green [blight].

oebele bruinsma
Reply to  Capitalist-Dad
May 8, 2021 7:01 am

The answer is: ” If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it” ….” and thus by extension the truth is the greatest enemy of the State”
Nazi prpaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

Anon
Reply to  oebele bruinsma
May 8, 2021 7:27 am

Yes.. I would agree with you in general. But if the lie goes on long enough, there is a usually a “sell by date” as reality sooner or later catches up with you:

US seen as bigger threat to democracy than Russia or China, global poll finds

The US faces an uphill task presenting itself as the chief guardian of global democracy, according to a new poll that shows the US is seen around the world as more of a threat to democracy than even Russia and China.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat-democracy-russia-china-global-poll

And that is from a liberal news source doing its best to spin the data.

It took a lot of work to accomplish that and my guess is the world is coming to its senses about trusting the United States in general.

And that raises an interesting parallel: the media was saturated with Russia, Russia, Russia, and the lie did not take. Will Climate Change be next? My prediction is yes and that the recent escalation to “climate emergency” is a last desperate throw of the dice. IMHO

And this is what has become of the country that won the Cold War and was supposed to lead the World to a new epoch of global prosperity and peace: a “truth averse”, Wall Street controlled Potemkin democracy. 🙁

Last edited 2 months ago by Anon
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Anon
May 8, 2021 8:30 am

“The US faces an uphill task presenting itself as the chief guardian of global democracy, according to a new poll that shows the US is seen around the world as more of a threat to democracy than even Russia and China.”

Well, that’s the claim, but I don’t see thousands and thousands of people trying to cross into Russia and China right now. I see Russians and Chinese and every other nationality trying desperately to get into this decaying, has-been of a country called the United States of America.

The U.S. *does* have a little bit of a socialism/authoritarianism problem right now, but we are working on fixing that by throwing the Socialist Democrats out of office the next time around.

Anon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 8, 2021 9:47 am

That is an interesting heuristic and I won’t say you are incorrect. However, that migration gradient must be attributed to something. Is it to a better political system or a better economy?

For example, the people of Austria overwhelming agreed to unification with Nazi Germany in 1938. Why? A better political system or a better economy? And you can go back and look at other historical migrations, for example the tribal migrations into the Roman Empire. Was it Rome’s good governance that was the attraction? Or economic factors? And the emigration of the Irish to America during the Potato Famine. And these types of economic migrations have been going on long before “democracy” was a thing.

And through examples like that we might question the majority of migrants currently entering the United States with a quiz at the border: possibly they are completely familiar with the Federalist Papers?

My suspicion is that the gradient is caused by economic opportunity. And to wit, the Biden Administration is currently looking at remediating the economic factors that are driving people from the Northern Triangle, verses promulgating a Central American version of HR1 as a panacea.

So, if you go with the economic gradient as the primary cause of migration, then you have to look at what created the gradient to begin with and then how to maintain it.

And a bellwether of that might be to look at relocation patterns of corporations, banks and factories. What is the trend there? Are they entering or exiting the United States? And what will doubling of the price of electricity do to that trend? And as corporations and jobs leave, one might expect a decline in migration to the United States, except for the extremely impoverished.

Another bellwether is corruption, is it increasing or decreasing in the United States? And that was the issue foreign nationals are reacting to in the article I posted. They don’t see the United States as a positive for “democracy” in their own countries… but that is where the data and facts may take us, assuming the poll is reproduced and valid. Like it or not. And that has implications for US global leadership, as once economic parity is achieved by degrading the US economy, the US being the world’s foremost proponent of “democracy” isn’t likely to sustain its leadership position.

And from my own experience as a scientist, I have been presented with far more lucrative opportunities abroad (in India, China, Mexico and South East Asia) than in the United States… which was quite contrary to what I had expected going into the field. So, in a sense I have intellectually migrated from the United States… having spent many years abroad.

Last edited 2 months ago by Anon
Drake
Reply to  Anon
May 8, 2021 10:33 am

A lot of questions, but no need to conflate reality with politics. People are coming into the us illegally across the southern border primarily for economic reasons, 99% or so. Those claiming persecution for asylum are using policies created by Democrats as a method to add to their base.

Are the political systems in the “northern triangle” horrendous, YES. That is why the OBiden proposals to send money to “fix” the immigration problem will only enrich the corrupt rulers of those nations. But that is not the reason people are leaving their home countries per se, it is the economies created by the corrupt and incompetent governments that are to blame.

We (the US) don’t need another liberal full employment policy of polling people at the border to know the obvious. As a scientist, and I would assume a logical thinker, I am surprised at many of your questions. Ultimately it does not matter why people migrate from one locale to another, the fact is they are moving to IMPROVE their lives. Ex. Those leaving NY, Cali., Mass, Michigan, etc. to Republican led freer low tax states. Studying all the other crap is just a way to waste funds for to employ even more liberals.

BTW: What is overhead. Costs not essential of producing whatever. Answering your whole list of questions would just add to overhead, and would add NOTHING to improve anyone’s life, except the liberals employed to find the answers. What we see here at WUWT every day is that liberals already know the answer they want and will produce a study to get that answer. i.e., Immigration at the US southern border IS POLITICAL so we need to increase the number allowed for asylum by a factor of 10 or 100 or 1000. See what the OBiden administration has already done, without any “study” for justification.

MarkW
Reply to  Anon
May 8, 2021 11:32 am

If you think Russia has a good economy, you haven’t been paying attention to anything outside your classroom.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Anon
May 8, 2021 1:48 pm

Q: “For example, the people of Austria overwhelming agreed to unification with Nazi Germany in 1938. Why? A better political system or a better economy?”

A: Maybe a better army?

Q: “Another bellwether is corruption, is it increasing or decreasing in the United States?”

A: You can’t get more corrupt than a stolen election.

MarkW
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
May 8, 2021 2:51 pm

At least we haven’t reached the point of using secret services to kill political opponents. Unlike the “democracies” that anon approves of.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Anon
May 9, 2021 3:41 am

“That is an interesting heuristic and I won’t say you are incorrect. However, that migration gradient must be attributed to something. Is it to a better political system or a better economy?”

I would say both.

n.n
Reply to  Anon
May 8, 2021 8:32 am

Liberalism (i.e. divergence) has evolved as a left of center ideology. The Guardian is in favor of the democratic/dictatorial duality and an inclusive threat under post-normal (e.g. cargo cult) science, redistributive/retributive change, and diversity (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism) to Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

MarkW
Reply to  Anon
May 8, 2021 9:02 am

It really amazes me how the left considers countries that have no democracy and precious little rule of law, to be the guardians of democracy and human rights.

MarkG
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2021 1:00 pm

Democracy and ‘human rights’ are the reason we’re in this mess. ‘Human rights’ is just a nicer name for communism.

AlexBerlin
Reply to  MarkG
May 9, 2021 2:36 pm

“Human rights” have only ever benefitted antisocial, perverted and criminal individuals. Decent law-abiding citizens are quite content with the freedoms guaranteed and protected by ordinary law. The only thing “Human rights” has changed is that the outlaws now are allowed to remain, prosper, and multiply as freeloaders and to the detriment of honest bourgeois society. It’s like putting doctors under a law that makes it illegal to destroy and remove pathogens and parasites that are infesting the body of a patient.

MarkW
Reply to  Anon
May 8, 2021 9:03 am

The same media giants that have convinced most leftists that the US is a danger to democracy, are also trying to convince the world that more CO2 is going to be the death of us all.

Reply to  oebele bruinsma
May 8, 2021 12:31 pm

…or maybe Lenin.

Reply to  Capitalist-Dad
May 8, 2021 7:15 am

Search JPM corporate jets….the question for Jamie is will he order the fleet to be painted Eco-green?…..or maybe ESG green?

Reply to  Capitalist-Dad
May 8, 2021 8:24 am

Many believe that telling a lie is OK if it results in a “greater good”. “Post modern science.”

n.n
Reply to  Fred Haynie
May 8, 2021 8:36 am

A new old religion (i.e. behavioral protocol) dictated by mortal gods and goddesses. Post-modern or post-normal (e.g. cargo cult) science is merely exploited as leverage to force people to take a knee.

mwhite
Reply to  Capitalist-Dad
May 9, 2021 6:40 am

Cipolla’s five fundamental laws of stupidity:

  • Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
  • The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
  • A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain…
  • Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people…

The Security Junkie Syndrome; How Pausing the World Leads to Catastrophe | David Eberhard | TEDxSSE – YouTube

Good watch

Scissor
May 8, 2021 6:17 am

I’d like to see Mr. Dimon’s complete list of humanity’s most urgent problems. Then perhaps one might get a sense of priorities.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
May 8, 2021 8:36 am

Dimon’s shareholders ought to ask him on what he bases all those dire predictions about the Earth’s climate and CO2.

Dimon is getting ready to invest big bucks on fixing a CO2 problem that might not need fixing, and his shareholders ought to be told why their money is being spent in a certain way.

What is the evidence you used to determine that CO2 is a problem that needs fixing, Mr. Dimon? That ought to be a simple question to answer, assuming there is evidence, and you owe that kind of explanation to your stockholders before you go off half-cocked, chasing windmills.

Redge
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 9, 2021 12:03 am

I think the majority of shareholders in JP Morgan Chase couldn’t care less where Dimon sends the money as long as their investment did well.

Especially the “green” shareholders

Last edited 2 months ago by Redge
Joseph Zorzin
May 8, 2021 6:17 am

Now Massachusetts is trying to import Canadian hydropower through Maine (“New England Clean Energy Connect”) but has already run into an injunction due to opposition from environmental groups. . . .”

Since New Hampshire doesn’t want the grid- if Mass. wants to go through Maine- I don’t know how it can get to Mass. unless it goes part way in the sea because New Hampshire is in the way- it does have a coast, though not much. Maine doesn’t touch Mass. Anyone know how it can get from Maine to Mass. without going in the water?

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 8, 2021 9:06 am

Wormholes?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 8, 2021 9:23 am

The plan is to build a substation in Lewiston, and from there, it will hook into the pre-existing grid. So, no NH towns would be involved in any of the new construction.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 8, 2021 9:29 am

Got it. Interesting. So, you must be a New Englander? Are you finding people who are skeptical of “the emergency”? I can’t find more than a few in Massachusetts. Virtually everyone here has the faith and now they’re finding out the consequences- destruction of forests and fields and the need to expand the grid and they’re complaining about it. They want “clean and green” but without seeing the damage.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 8, 2021 1:08 pm

Ayuh, gonna go through downtown LA (Lewiston-Auburn) then take a left turn where the old red bahn by Turnah’s Fahm used to be, an then on down to the people from Away through…
Well nevah mind. Ya can’t get theah from heah.

Drake
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 8, 2021 10:41 am

Another funny thing. Mass wanted more natural gas but NY blocked any additional pipelines. There is a constitutional dictate for the federal government for “interstate” commerce. TRUMP! did nothing to help Mass. Really glad to see the far leftist state beginning to reap the rewards of their politics.

Now if the feds would only get Nantucket sound filled with bird choppers and ruin their sailing and Obama’s view!

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Drake
May 8, 2021 11:45 am

NY state wasn’t the problem- it was the enviros in MA- they’re against everything here- now even complaining about big solar farms destroying forests- though I warned them about that a decade ago- after a big one was built next to my ‘hood. I guess they just don’t want any energy and at this rate they won’t have any.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 8, 2021 12:56 pm

JZ,
Energy is thought of much the same way as regular bathing by the new, feminist males and their cohorts; not a very high priority for common consumption, except for the high intensity lighting needed by indoor marijuana growers!

rah
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 8, 2021 4:43 pm

Massachusetts?
Come now, for all of their BS talk about climate and the environment and “green energy” over the years about 71.4% of the households still rely directly on fossil fuels for heat and that does not include those households heated by electricity which get their power from any of the 12 coal fired power plants still in operation in the state.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  rah
May 9, 2021 3:42 am

Right- that’s the point- here people like the IDEA of “clean energy” but when they have to give up their oil furnaces and non electric cars- they may reconsider. I didn’t know that there are still 12 coal power plants- I’ll have to check into that.

OK- I looked- at https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=MA it says, “….since mid-2017 there has been no utility-scale coal-fired electricity generation in the state”

Last edited 2 months ago by Joseph Zorzin
Pauleta
May 8, 2021 6:24 am

Unironic use of the term LatinX (an aberration in itself) is a bad bad sign.

n.n
Reply to  Pauleta
May 8, 2021 6:55 am

It’s not an ethnic, national, or similar class. LatinX is a diversity or color class (e.g. racist designation), similar to people of color (i.e. color bloc) compared to colored people (i.e. low-information attribute).

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  n.n
May 8, 2021 7:39 am

Eh?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 8, 2021 9:28 am

Yeah, I think n.n. is actually an incarnation of Q, a self-informing chatbot with poor grasp of grammar and a propensity to over-weight phrases by frequency of occurrance in popular media, without benefit of a thessaurus.
Or maybe it’s a guy who thinks that being incomprehensible proves his intellectual elevation above the incomprehending masses?

Abolition Man
Reply to  paranoid goy
May 8, 2021 1:03 pm

p. goy,
Didn’t Noam Chomsky make a rather successful career out of that?
It used to be called baffling with BS; but now it’s a popular choice for academics everywhere!

Pauleta
Reply to  n.n
May 8, 2021 7:49 am

Latinx is an idiotic term, never used by Latin people.

Last edited 2 months ago by Pauleta
n.n
Reply to  Pauleta
May 8, 2021 8:39 am

Exactly. It is a racist designation used by diversity-mongers, where diversity [dogma] is a color judgment, not limited to racism, that normalizes color blocs (e.g. people of color), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination.

MarkW
Reply to  Pauleta
May 8, 2021 9:10 am

In Spanish, the ‘o’ ending is masculine while the ‘a’ ending is feminine.
Since there is no gender neutral ending, the convention is to use ‘o’ for mixed sex groups.

The woke have decided that this is sexist, so they have invented a gender neutral ending.
Not once did they actually ask the Latino’s if such a thing was needed or wanted. It was just imposed.

Abolition Man
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2021 1:04 pm

Maybe they only asked Hispanics!

Richard Page
Reply to  Abolition Man
May 8, 2021 2:55 pm

Is that Hispanics or Hispanix?

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2021 1:49 pm

I don’t always speak gibberish but when I do, I say dos latin-equis

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 8, 2021 2:06 pm

comment image

Joseph Zorzin
May 8, 2021 6:31 am

“Or is it all just a cynical grab for some of the upcoming gusher of government subsidies, with no detectable effect at all on the climate, or even much effect on the use of fossil fuels?”

That’s the story in a nutshell- I see it here in MA where every academics, state and local government agencies, NGOs and many businesses raise their hands to show they’re going to follow this party line- as if they really believe it- when it’s all about reaping windfalls. I wouldn’t mind so much if that gusher of money was spent wisely- on enhancing America’s military so we can resist the rise of China, on improvements in education (the best way to deal with racism and to improve the economy long term), on advancing the space program, and improving the corrupt and greedy medical industry, etc. If that money is spent wisely, it could be seen as a long term investing in the nation’s future. But spending it to fight climate change is insane. They claim it’ll create jobs. But we want jobs to produce goods and services we need- not wind and solar “farms” which destroy the landscape. This climate emergency religion is the real threat to mankind and the planet.

David Dibbell
May 8, 2021 7:16 am

My favorite quote: “…many prior forecasts of the renewable transition were too ambitious since they ignored energy density, intermittency and the complex realities of incumbent energy systems…” It’s those incumbents that won’t let us transition! Maybe there’s a good reason why the existing energy systems came to be, and why they persist despite those oh-so-good intentions of the renewables sector.

Reply to  David Dibbell
May 8, 2021 8:33 am
n.n
Reply to  David Dibbell
May 8, 2021 8:45 am

A niche solution of intermittent/renewables and an environmental blight sustained with sociopolitical myths and hopes for a renewable trillion dollar subsidized return on coerced and elective investments. Follow the green[backs], the yuan, perhaps rubles, and sterling, indeed.

Duane
May 8, 2021 7:22 am

Well, of course we are going to decarbonize the planet eventually. We are currently using carbon fuel sources at a vastly higher rate than they are produced by nature, hence we will run out, if we haven’t already decarbonized. Despite repeated pronouncements of peak oil in the past, there will in fact be a peak oil.

The only question is when.

Wind and solar aren’t going to decarbonize the planet. It is going to take nuclear energy to do that – fission and/or fusion power. If the greens were really serious about decarbonizing the planet, they would have to go for nuclear.

As for the author’s statement that electrical power generation only accounts for 18% of current energy usage, that may be true but that is going to change as we decarbonize.

Central nuclear power stations producing vast amounts of electricity can then transmit and store that electricity in a mobile medium to cover transportation energy consumption. Hydrogen is the natural energy carrier between the source and transportation systems. We already know how to produce the hydrogen, transport it, and use it to store and release electrical energy. We just need to commit to the conversion.

We can do this conversion to hydrogen and nuclear over a period of decades. Many decades. It certainly won’t be by 2030 as Biden has promised. It won’t be by 2050 either. It could be done by the end of this century.

We’re really not arguing over the ultimate destination – decarbonization, because it is coming whether we like it or not, the planet is not creating new carbon energy sources nearly as fast as we’re consuming them. We are really only arguing over the implementation timeline. We can make the transition stupidly and inefficiently, causing vast public harm … or we can make the transition smartly and efficiently, over a realistic timeframe that remaking our human infrastructure necessarily requires.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Duane
May 8, 2021 7:34 am

You are the carbon they want to reduce.

n.n
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
May 8, 2021 8:52 am

Yes, there are diverse precedents for Planned Population schemes, not limited to Planned Parent/hood. Still, the novelty of voluntary compliance has been a progressive coup, or not. Time will tell if our faith, conceived in secular lucre, is sustainable.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Duane
May 8, 2021 7:43 am

Peak oil at least 200 years from now. Peak coal, probably never. Peak gas at least 500 years and likely never. By the time the next glaciation sets in people will venerate coal, not as king, but as a god.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 8, 2021 8:57 am

But you are soooo wrong!!! I remember watching a BBC Panorama prog back in the 1970s (news/docu show) telling us that the oil & gas will be running out about……errrr, NOW!!! As Bert Onestone said, predictions are very difficult, especially about the future! ;-)) It’s all very well making apparently profound statements about it’s all running out, but as usual, all such predictions are positioned so far into the future that the Sooth-sayers, will be dead & buried by then, or worse, safely retired on their big fat taxpayer funded pensions, fully protected from being held accountable for their pronouncements!!! Once they are held accountable, their pensions, homes, investments, etc put at risk, they’ll soon change their tunes!!! Don’t know about you Virginian Colonists, but back here in Blighty, the HMRC -Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, (aka the taxman), announced a few years back that the majority of self-employed people in the UK, earned less than the national average income, yet the opposite was true for the public sector!!! We also don’t have all the benefits that they take for granted either!!!! 😉 Sleep safe & well dear friends!

Drake
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 8, 2021 11:04 am

Not Paul Ehrlich. He is even saying he was mostly right when he was entirely wrong.

And still feeding at the public trough.

And their pensions will never be put at risk as they should be. They won’t even be sued into debt because Republicans don’t have the guts to do what Weisman did to Manafort, Flynn, etc. and what OBiden is going to do to Rudy.

The next Republican administration needs to eliminate the FB and the rest of the “Justice” department and start over. Clear out the swamp creatures.

Once “conservative” attorneys are in place, prosecute all the leftist, especially Weisman, he of repeatedly wiping his phone so the records could not be used against him. That was and is obstruction of justice.

RelPerm
Reply to  Drake
May 8, 2021 5:05 pm

I’m amused when catastrophic alarmists say they were right with predictions when they were actually entirely wrong.

Why can’t they just say they blew a silly prediction rather than doubling down and saying they were not only right but it’s worse than we thought!

Many more do this than Ehlich (and Mann and Hansen and Gore and Nye and Kerry and US Navy and National Park Service and Prince Charles and…). It must be a personality trait of an alarmist.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Duane
May 8, 2021 8:45 am

Last I heard was Brazil possesses the largest know oil & gas reserves ever discovered on-shore & largely off-shore! That great eco-bunny Barak Obama guaranteed that the USA would give every technological assistance to them to develop this fossil fuel asset!!!!! Hypocrisy writ large me thinks!!!!!

Kevin kilty
May 8, 2021 7:31 am

In order to support the “green energy” sales job, we are expected to believe three things simultaneously that I am absolutely sure are mutually exclusive.

1) It will create jobs
2) These jobs will pay well
3) Energy costs will decline.

Last edited 2 months ago by Kevin kilty
n.n
Reply to  Kevin kilty
May 8, 2021 9:00 am

4) Productivity will improve or increase.

Perhaps 5) Quality of life. What or who are people… persons willing to sacrifice today.

The first three are easy. For example, the third is a line item masked by progressive prices, handmade tales (e.g. sociopolitical and scientific myths), labor and environmental arbitrage, and redistributive change (e.g. Affordable Healthcare). Reconciliation is handled in the semi-modern fashion through avoidance and coercion… a new religion (i.e. behavioral protocol), a Twilight faith, and secular lucre to facilitate normalization.

Burgher King
Reply to  Kevin kilty
May 8, 2021 9:20 am

You’ve missed a fourth point. Environmental justice requires that persons of color get priority access to the new green energy jobs.

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 8, 2021 7:34 am

Carbon-based fuels will be around for a very long time for one simple reason: energy density. Add to that the comparatively little effort needed to handle gas and petrol and you will know that if there had been no carbon-based fuels in the ground we would have invented them and synthesized them using nuclear. The battery based economy will go out of fashion before it has hatched as energy source just like the battery hens as source of eggs are being phased out.

May 8, 2021 7:53 am

The simple facts are that 1. Natural emissions are at least 20 times greater than all anthropogenic emissions,. 2. there is no accumulation (of either natural or anthropogenic) beyound one year. The open and cold polar waters sucks up all CO2 that reaches it’s surface within a year, and 3. The year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the result of a global year-to-year increase in natural emission rates All active sinks Icold water, clouds,rain, trees, grass, wet soil, fresh concrete, phytoplankton) do not treat anthropogenics signifantly different from natural emissions.

Alan the Brit
May 8, 2021 8:35 am

First an observation. Didn’t the last great financial institution stocked full of the world’s greatest eco-bunny err sorry, climate experts, one Lehman Brothers, produce two significant climate reports back in 2009ish, telling everyone with immense confidence that the world was coming to an end by 2100, yet they were unable to foresee their own demise & collapse 12 months later?

Secondly, yet again we’re told that Human activities, especially from the democratic free west economies, are destroying the planet, & therefore the only solution to man’s interference in the Earth’s climate, is to somehow interfere with the Earth’s climate to stop it happening! I am very confused!!! I guess that’s the trouble with being a practical structural engineer, I don’t know nuttin!!! Next time I see some troubling cracking in a building, or an over deflecting steel beam holding up substantial masonry (brittle by nature), I’d better call in an environmentalist from Greenpeace(Redwar)/Enemies of the Earth/World Wastrels Fund/Extinction Rebellion, or some other similar learned organisation, to tell me what to do!!!

I have a distinct aversion to anyone telling me what is wrong with this, that ,or the other or anything, yet they offer no solutions of any practicality, if at all!!!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 10, 2021 4:38 am

“First an observation. Didn’t the last great financial institution stocked full of the world’s greatest eco-bunny err sorry, climate experts, one Lehman Brothers, produce two significant climate reports back in 2009ish, telling everyone with immense confidence that the world was coming to an end by 2100, yet they were unable to foresee their own demise & collapse 12 months later?”

Good point!

Rud Istvan
May 8, 2021 9:01 am

Were, in fact, JPMC to invest and loan as Dimon espouses, it would soon no longer be a big bank thanks to loses, and Dimon would no longer head it.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 8, 2021 9:45 am

If only it were possible to do such experiments, Rud.

Ferdberple
May 8, 2021 10:05 am

Follow the money. If you want eat well you must first stampede the herd over a cliff.

Ferdberple
May 8, 2021 10:34 am

If CO2 is truly a problem, why does it cost money to buy CO2? Shouldn’t the government pay you $$ if you bring in CO2? Similar to a gun buy-back? After all CO2 is much more of a threat to human existence than guns.

Bruce Cobb
May 8, 2021 12:36 pm

Fantasy – Biden’s Climate Promises meet Reality via Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg wins by a mile: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/banks-biden-aoc-green-new-deal-justin-haskins
He still seems to think that wind and solar, through innovation could eventually become cheaper than fossil fuels, including some sort of battery breakthrough. Not going to happen. If there is going to be any sort of breakthrough in energy, it will be nuclear. And that’s probably decades away still.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 10, 2021 4:41 am

Bjorn is actually misleading people when he says CO2 is a problem that needs addressing. Bjorn has no evidence establishing that CO2 is a problem, yet he implies that he does. He should not be telling people this because he doesn’t know if it is true or not.

Jon R
May 8, 2021 12:46 pm

You really shouldn’t need the back of an envelope to know this.

ResourceGuy
May 8, 2021 12:53 pm

Want some reality? Shutting down the Colonial Pipeline for ransom cyber attack is reality. Take your time bringing it back online to serve the northeast. They can do without gasoline and jet fuel.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  ResourceGuy
May 8, 2021 4:23 pm

Good thing we have umpteen intelligence agencies working on this!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
May 10, 2021 4:47 am

Our intelligence agencies have had their focus diverted to investigating Trump and his supporters. They are trying to make the case that all 75 million Trump supporters are racists and want to overthrow the country.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ResourceGuy
May 10, 2021 4:45 am

The federal governmet ought to make it illegal for American companies like piplines and powerplants and water purification facilities to have their infrastructure connected to the internet.

Most of this internet connection is just for convenience and is not necessary to run the business.

Get our vital infrastructure OFF the internet!

goldminor
May 8, 2021 1:23 pm

Temps at the South Pole have dropped down to a low of 98.5 F over the last several days. It has been quite a number of years since Antarctica has seen temps this low. … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=168.56,-92.34,672/loc=90.536,-79.659

Rich Davis
Reply to  goldminor
May 8, 2021 3:02 pm

That’s minus 98.5F I would presume.

goldminor
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 18, 2021 11:55 am

You would be presuming correctly. This is the second time where I forgot the minus sign for temps at the South Pole.

rah
May 8, 2021 4:27 pm

Now wait a minute? So Obama failed? https://youtu.be/u2pZSvq9bto

Sara
May 8, 2021 6:06 pm

Awwww…. isn’t that sweet???? The real world creeps in on little mouse feet at the end as says “Pffffffttttt! You guys in Wokeland are idiots!”

How’s that zero carbon stuff workin’ fer you Ecohippies???

It’s going to be in the mid-30s tonight in my AO, and also tomorrow night, and possibly Monday night as well. Furnace is still running. I leave the thermostat at 75F and the house is well-insulated. Double pane glass in the windows does make a difference in holding the heat in. Snow is forecast to the north of me.

If only we could take away from the expensive upper level people all the stuff they take for granted and give them a dose of the real and very harsh natural world…. What??? I can dream, can’t I?

TonyG
Reply to  Sara
May 9, 2021 7:03 am

These are people for whom “roughing it” means parking the RV somewhere that there’s no cell phone service for a night.

They’re insulated from reality by technology. They have no idea how harsh nature really is.

Robber
May 8, 2021 10:20 pm

What a profound insight: “many prior forecasts of the renewable transition were too ambitious since they ignored energy density, intermittency and the complex realities of incumbent energy systems.” But will the woke ever wake up? 

2hotel9
May 9, 2021 9:29 am

“Systemic racism is a tragic part of America’s history.” Absolutely right, and the most “tangible, meaningful way.” Americans can address that is by eradicating the systemically racist Democrat Party and driving systemically racist/fascist leftist ideology out of our government, schools and media.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  2hotel9
May 10, 2021 4:54 am

“racism is a tragic part of America’s history”

Racism is a tragic part of the Human Race. Racism has existed for all of human history. It wasn’t started by Americans. Racism has been practiced and is still practiced by numerous nations and peoples.

In the United States, we make a concerted effort to fight back against racism.

Babies are not born being racists, they have to be taught that. Let’s stop teaching our babies to be racists.

2hotel9
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 10, 2021 5:16 am

I have been across the water and seen real racism, it is rampant across Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Yet only Americans are endlessly harangued about how racist we are.

2hotel9
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 10, 2021 5:20 am

Add to that the fact the Democrat Party will never give up on using racism against the people of America and we are in one hell of a mess. Until Americans stand up and force Democrat Party and the rest of the political left to stop this sh%t our situation is only going to get worse. Which is precisely WHY they are doing it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  2hotel9
May 10, 2021 5:03 am

Being proud of one’s heritage is not my definition of racism.

Racism is unfair/ignorant generalizations attributing bad/evil characteristics to a whole group of people just because they are all the same color or ethnicity.

Racists judge people by the color of their skin.

Martin Luther King Jr. said we should judge a person by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.

Martin Luther King Jr.s “Golden Rule” has it right. Let’s do it that way.

2hotel9
Reply to  2hotel9
May 10, 2021 5:14 am

Why did you edit out this line of your comment,”Giving citizen rights to a semi-human species of farm animal changed world history for the worse.” ? Perhaps because it is so racist? Here is your complete comment as received through email notification, “Systemic racism used to be one of the wisest aspects of American history. Giving citizen rights to a semi-human species of farm animal changed world history for the worse.”. Funny you would change it.

Ryan
May 9, 2021 1:05 pm

“JPMorgan Chase aims to finance and facilitate more than $2.5 trillion over 10 years – beginning this year through the end of 2030…”

As I was reading this and understand it’s all about money with a bank and that’s all they care about. This is nothing more than a money grab from government subsidies, i.e. the tax payer. Then I read the first sentence of the next paragraph:

Wow, that sounds great! Or is it all just a cynical grab for some of the upcoming gusher of government subsidies,…”

Chase doesn’t give a ** about the climate. There is only one kind of green bankers care about.
 

%d bloggers like this: