Don’t Get Discouraged About The Preposterous Plans To Eliminate Fossil Fuels

Reposted from The Manhattan Contrarian

Francis Menton

It’s easy to get discouraged about the “climate” scare, otherwise known as the socialist takeover of everything under the cover story of a faux moral crusade to “save the planet.” Sometimes it seems that all you can hear are preening politicians and academics and journalists and “scientists” shouting about the immediate “existential crisis” that requires the prompt end of fossil fuels and that your energy use (but not theirs) must be severely restricted.

Just today, UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued a statement warning that the next ten years are our “final chance” to avert a “climate catastrophe”:

We are rapidly reaching the point of no return for the planet. We face a triple environmental emergency — biodiversity loss, climate disruption and escalating pollution. . . . Science tells us these next 10 years are our final chance to avert a climate catastrophe. . . .

The few people pushing back get shouted down and drowned out. How could this possibly end well?

When I discuss this subject with my climate skeptic friends, most are amazed that I remain an optimist. But good reasons are on my side. While we realists may not have the megaphone at the moment, I am very confident that energy realism will ultimately win out, and much sooner than you might think. The reasons are simple: the magical “renewables” don’t work and are ridiculously expensive. And when the people figure this out, as they inevitably will, the anti-fossil-fuel jihad can quickly turn toxic for the left.

As background, recall a story from my own New York State that I covered a little over a year ago. Economic growth in certain regions of the state — particularly Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island — had led the local gas utility, National Grid, to propose a new pipeline under New York Harbor to provide needed additional capacity; but the pipeline got blocked by the Governor’s minions at the behest of anti-fossil-fuel zealots. By the fall of 2019 the utility had run out of pipeline capacity and started refusing natural gas hookups to new customers. Quickly 3000 customers had been refused, and a political outcry had begun. If the Governor actually believed his own climate rhetoric, at that point he would have stood up and admitted that he was the one who had blocked the pipeline and told the people that they needed to do without the gas and must get far-more-expensive electric heat and stoves for the good of the planet. But no. Instead, the Governor quickly caved to the homeowners and businesses who wanted the gas, and cynically issued statements placing the blame on the utility. The utility responded by implementing a program of sending the gas in compressed form in thousands of trucks. As far as I can determine, that temporary non-solution remains in place today. Meanwhile, the state is supposedly doubling down with a new plan to ban all new natural gas heating by 2025. Do you believe it will actually occur?

The fact is that fossil fuels are cheap and they work and, when confronted with the reality of what doing without them actually means, the people are not going to give them up. Recent days have brought a number of new data points that deserve noting:

  • Over in the UK, the nominally Conservative governments of Theresa May and now Boris Johnson have supposedly committed the country to achieving “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. It may sound nice, but only little by little do the people get to find out the practical effects. During the month of May the government let it drop that there would be a ban on gas boilers by 2035, and everyone using gas for heat would need to switch to electric — at a cost estimated at tens of thousands of dollars per home. At the moment, the UK has nearly 24 million homes with gas heat, compared to fewer than 2 million with electric heat. The political blowback was immediate. From the Spectator, May 25: “[I]t is steadily becoming apparent just how politically costly the net zero commitment could be. . . . A government threat to ban gas boilers in existing homes by 2035, and to fine homeowners if they failed to meet the deadline, seems to have lasted less than a day. It was reported on Tuesday morning that ministers were considering including such a ban in a new heat and buildings strategy to be published next month – but by the afternoon the government appeared to have backtracked, and said there wouldn’t be any fines.”
  • In the U.S., a very similar story as to natural gas is beginning to play out politically. The Wall Street Journal reports on May 31 that “[m]ajor cities including San Francisco, Seattle, Denver and New York have either enacted or proposed measures to ban or discourage the use of the fossil fuel [natural gas] in new homes and buildings.” So far those proposed bans have proceeded without major political blowback; but then, the effective dates remain several years in the future, and as I reported a few days ago, here in New York there has been little press coverage of the practical consequences, and I think that very few people yet know what their masters are planning for them. But meanwhile, some Republicans are smart enough that they are starting to figure out that this could be a great political issue. Per the Journal: “The bans in turn have led Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kansas and Louisiana to enact laws outlawing such municipal prohibitions in their states before they can spread, arguing that they are overly restrictive and costly. Ohio is considering a similar measure.”
  • Climate crusaders think they are making serious headway in forcing the big, evil Western-based oil majors to reduce their “carbon footprints” and back away from the oil extraction industry. The International Energy Agency said in May that all new oil and gas production must stop by 2022 in order for the world to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement. And companies like Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell seem to be making at least some noises about complying with demands to back away from fossil fuels. But does that mean that oil will not be produced to fulfill consumer demand? Get real. This kind of nonsense just gives an opening for the Russians, and other such unsavory characters, to step in to fill the void. Gizmodo reports on May 28 about a truly enormous new oil project from Russian oil giant Rosneft that has recently begun construction in the Arctic: “The project, called Vostok Oil, is owned by Rosneft, which is controlled by the Russian government. . . . The proposed project is dauntingly huge. Rosneft said that it anticipates exporting 25 million tons of oil a year by 2024, 50 million tons by 2027, and 115 million tons by 2030. [115 million tons is around 850 million barrels.] (The company plans to make 15 entirely new towns for the estimated 400,000 workers needed.)”.
  • The crusaders against fossil fuels mainly talk about the electricity sector, where replacing coal and natural gas with wind and solar can at least seem plausible to the poorly informed. But the electricity sector only accounts for about 25% of energy use in the U.S., and plenty of other major sectors like agriculture, industry, airplanes and shipping — using in the aggregate far more energy than the electricity sector — have no realistic strategies for getting rid of fossil fuels. On June 3 the New York Times reports on the ocean shipping industry, which on the whole emits as much CO2 as all U.S. coal power plants combined, in a piece headlined “Tasked to Fight Climate Change, a Secretive U.N. Agency Does the Opposite.” The bottom line is that the shipping industry, under the auspices of the UN’s International Maritime Organization, is doing absolutely nothing to reduce carbon emissions. “The organization has repeatedly delayed and watered down climate regulations, even as emissions from commercial shipping continue to rise, a trend that threatens to undermine the goals of the 2016 Paris climate accord. . . . Next week, the organization is scheduled to enact its first greenhouse gas rules since Paris — regulations that do not cut emissions, have no enforcement mechanism and leave key details shrouded in secrecy.” Well, guess what — The ocean shipping industry is never going to cut carbon emissions. Get used to it. The only remotely plausible way for ocean shipping to get rid of the use of fossil fuels is by going back to sailing ships and wind power. It’s not going to happen. Big sailing ships carrying large amounts of freight can take a month or sometimes two to cross the Atlantic — you never know which, depending on weather — and it could be double that to cross the Pacific. Also, sailing ships cannot be nearly as large as fossil-fuel-powered ships, require hugely more staff, and can pose major risks to both cargo and crew. For these reasons, no sailing ship can be anything close to competitive in the ocean cargo business. Trust me, this won’t happen. And how about nuclear? The same people demanding to get rid of fossil fuels will never allow that to happen either.
  • And finally, getting rid of fossil fuels will require vast amounts of land to be turned over to wind and solar facilities. A big study from Princeton University in December 2020 estimated some hundreds of thousands of square miles of land would be required for the U.S. to get to a fully “net-zero” situation. But when facilities of a small fraction of this amount get proposed, the enormity of the construction becomes clear to local residents and environmentalists, who then rise up to block the projects. The Wall Street Journal has a front-page piece on June 4: “Solar Power’s Land Grab Hits a Snag: Environmentalists.” The piece focuses on a big new solar facility planned in Nevada, covering some 14 square miles — a tiny, tiny fraction of the multiple hundred thousand square miles that would be needed to get the U.S. to “net-zero.” But here is the reaction: “[M]any here [in Nevada] are dead set against a planned solar plant atop the Mormon Mesa, which overlooks this valley 50 miles northeast of Las Vegas. Slated to be the biggest solar plant in the U.S., the Battle Born Solar Project by California-based Arevia Power would carpet 14 square miles—the equivalent of 7,000 football fields—with more than a million solar panels 10 to 20 feet tall. It would be capable of producing 850 megawatts of electricity, or roughly one-tenth of Nevada’s current capacity. ‘It will destroy this land forever,’ Ms. Rebich, 33, said after riding her bicycle on the 600-foot high mesa.” Here is a picture of the proposed site:
Nevada Desert.jpg

Read the full article here.

4.9 33 votes
Article Rating
125 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Miller
June 7, 2021 4:13 pm

I can foresee the day when we all get our petroleum heating products from Mexican cartels.

Last edited 4 months ago by Dave Miller
Scissor
Reply to  Dave Miller
June 7, 2021 7:33 pm

They’re good at digging tunnels, some quite a ways. Perhaps they could do pipelines too.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Scissor
June 8, 2021 6:54 am

Maybe we could get them to build natural gas pipelines under New York and Massachusetts. Then, if the local Climate Nazi politicians get wind of it (no pun intended) and try to stop it, we can call them racist. Hoist by their own petard!

observa
Reply to  Dave Miller
June 7, 2021 8:31 pm

Maybe they could carry jerry cans with them and be welcome? Err no wait a minute….
‘Do not come’: Kamala Harris issues border warning (msn.com)
Couldn’t she say please or pretty puhleese?

LdB
Reply to  Dave Miller
June 8, 2021 1:00 am

I am happy to buy from whoever will supply

Sara
Reply to  Dave Miller
June 8, 2021 4:42 am

This whole shtick about “save the planet – we ONLY have 10 years!!” is kind of like watching the movie “Becket”, with Peter O’Toole as Henry II, entering a peasant’s cottage and snarling about ‘Why is it so cold in here?”
And the poor peasant responds with “Your rules, my liege. No cutting down trees for fuel.”

oeman 50
Reply to  Sara
June 8, 2021 6:52 am

Good one on the “only 10 years” schtick. Every few years, we hear that we “only have 10 years.” Does anyone ever figure out that they keep on doing that? The goalposts are always 100 yards away in spite of fact that we advanced 50 yards. What a crock.

Jimmy Joe Meeker
June 7, 2021 4:25 pm

The point is not to replace the present energy used with energy from different sources. The plan is to make energy scarce and very expensive for ordinary people.

They don’t want people to be comfortable in the winter, they want them to be cold. They don’t expect people to drive battery EVs, they expect them to not have automobiles. The implementation is to break things well enough that we end up there before the masses figure out what was done to them.

Derg
Reply to  Jimmy Joe Meeker
June 7, 2021 4:27 pm

Yeah this exactly what 💩s like Simon, Ghalfrunt, Griff and Izaak want for humans.

Last edited 4 months ago by Derg
Sara
Reply to  Derg
June 8, 2021 4:45 am

Do any of you think those silly people can make their own bread from scratch the 18th century way? Or might be willing to live like that? Because that’s where this whole shtick is heading. 🙂

2hotel9
Reply to  Sara
June 8, 2021 6:30 am

Do they even own and have seasoned for use the cast iron needed to do such? Or know how to build an oven out of sticks and clay to bake in? Watching bloobtube don’t count. 😉 I made two batches of cornbread in my dutch ovens over the weekend, it don’t get no better than that!

Jeffery P
Reply to  2hotel9
June 8, 2021 7:58 am

They won’t have to. That’s what Marthas are for.

2hotel9
Reply to  Jeffery P
June 9, 2021 4:58 am

As in Stewart? Her branded cast iron is thin walled Chinese crap. I’ll stick with my Wagner and Lodge, nice and heavy, drop a rhino with a single blow! 😉 And then cook it.

TonyG
Reply to  Sara
June 8, 2021 7:37 am

Sara I don’t think any of them have thought that far ahead.

Bill Powers
Reply to  TonyG
June 11, 2021 12:48 pm

I think all of them under the age of 30 think that we will just build renewable infrastructure, flip a switch, and their energy driven life will continue without disruption and the world will be saved, no more damaging storms and the climate will never change from what it is today. They will never be hot, nor cold nor hungry.

They are the modern day equivalent of the children in the Pied Piper fable, skipping happily along, enjoying the music but will soon and suddenly find themselves lost in the deep dark cold woods without food and water huddled together for protection against the wild carnivorous animals.

I wonder how long it will take these 21st century children to realize that the predators lurking in their self imposed darkness are their illegally elected Central Authoritarian Government.

Scissor
Reply to  Jimmy Joe Meeker
June 7, 2021 4:55 pm

Just filled up a few minutes ago, and gasoline was almost double the price of that from last year.

Doonman
Reply to  Scissor
June 7, 2021 7:47 pm

And yet, there are no gas lines and all the stations are open.

menace
Reply to  Doonman
June 9, 2021 8:09 am

so whats your point, you like paying higher prices?
you like putting the squeeze on the lower classes?
give them even more gov’t money to survive so they think have to vote for socialists to survive?

n.n
Reply to  Jimmy Joe Meeker
June 7, 2021 6:32 pm

Intermittent/renewable energy and laundered, sustainable greenbacks established on a foundation of sociopolitical myths. Think of the babies!

TonyG
Reply to  Jimmy Joe Meeker
June 8, 2021 7:36 am

Cold, hungry people with nothing to lose being angry at you sounds like a wonderful plan

observer
Reply to  Jimmy Joe Meeker
June 8, 2021 12:31 pm

Bingo. It would be like a Russian in 1917 arguing that no one would ever embrace Marxism as it would involve mass murder and starvation.

Nick Schroeder
June 7, 2021 4:27 pm

Malta runs on propane tank trucks and LNG freighters.

nickc
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
June 7, 2021 5:01 pm

And how big is Malta?

H.R.
Reply to  nickc
June 7, 2021 7:28 pm

Population of Malta: 442,645 as of June, 2021.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/malta-population/

LdB
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
June 8, 2021 1:04 am

Yeah and power ships are coming to South Africa next year and Karpowership has a fleet of the suckers ready to deploy

That doesn’t make it a good idea it is more a measure of desperation 🙂

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
June 8, 2021 1:27 am

So does my 5 litre V8 Jeep.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
June 8, 2021 6:58 am

And that’s in a Mediterranean climate; imagine having to supply heating fuel (alone, much less electricity generation) to say, New York City due to the mass stupidity being proposed in the name of “climate change.”

Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2021 4:30 pm

Science tells us these next 10 years are our final chance to avert a climate catastrophe. . . .”

I think Guterres meant the Oracle of Delphi told him.

Doonman
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2021 7:54 pm

I heard James Hansen said that in 1988 in sworn testimony to the Senate. Since both Hansen’s and Guterres’ statements both can’t be true, someone is lying.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Doonman
June 7, 2021 10:20 pm

I think both are lying.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 8, 2021 4:07 am

In the Church of Warming the Oracle of Delphi is called Computer models.

George Daddis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 8, 2021 7:29 am

It is a little know fact that Pythia, the Oracle has legally changed her name to “Science”.
So when you hear someone say “I believe in Science”, you now know to whom they are referring.

Otherwise such a claim wouldn’t make any sense.

Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2021 4:40 pm

To any geologists here- regarding that desert scene proposed for a solar “farm”- don’t such desert areas occasionally get flash floods?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2021 4:55 pm

Flash floods are a possibility, but the water is largely confined to arroyos and dry stream beds. The scene in the foreground is neither. While I have seen it rain so hard in northern Arizona that I could no longer see the lane markings OR the edge of the road, it didn’t do any damage to the flat ground adjacent to the road.

Kit P
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2021 5:21 pm

Not a geologist but I know the answer. If you are hiking in the desert you should be careful of many things. While there may not be a cloud in the sky where you are, a distant thunderstorm could send a flash flood down a ‘wash’ you are hiking in.

I boondock in ‘Government Wash’ at Lake Mead NRA. Not in the wash but in the large flat area above.

Relative to the population of earth, there is infinite flat area to camp without fear of floods. Relative to the population of earth to make and install solar panels, there is infinite flat area for solar panels.

Just because you can do something does not mean you should. Solar is very bad way to make electricity. The purpose of solar is to take a picture of it so you can tell people you saving the planet.

Since the planet does not need saving, epic failure does not matter.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2021 6:17 pm

Dust accumulation is a bigger problem.

StephenP
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 7, 2021 11:19 pm

How much water will be needed to keep the panels clean, who will do the cleaning ( well-paid, unionised green jobs no doubt ), and how will they enjoy living and working in the mesa? IIRC it gets quite hot there in summer.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  StephenP
June 8, 2021 1:59 am

I have seen a lot of solar installations around the world and they all tend to be crusted with rain-splattered dust. Cleaning them doesn’t seem to occur to many people. Considering the cost of these things, keeping them clean and efficient should be a major concern.

Martin
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
June 8, 2021 5:55 am

why bother ? The subsidy cheques keep coming in regardless – the electricity produced is an irrelevance.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
June 8, 2021 11:16 am

Ref KitP’s comment.They are for photo-ops not actual electricity generation.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  StephenP
June 8, 2021 5:44 am

how will they enjoy living and working in the mesa? IIRC it gets quite hot there in summer.

But during daytime the panels would spend enough shadow for siesta. Cleaning during the night you don’t need extra water when dew precipitates on the surfaces.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2021 8:54 pm

Mormon Mesa is high, wide, and horizontal — more or less.
Google Earth will take you to its southern tip, 700 feet up from the valley below.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  John Hultquist
June 8, 2021 11:20 am

Good view of it as I-15 goes up to the top from Mesquite on the way to Vegas.

Rusty
June 7, 2021 4:44 pm

Switching from gas for domestic hot water and heating plus cooking to all electric in the UK requires 170GW heat demand at peak use during a cold winter like 2010.

Decarbonising domestic heating: What is the peak GB demand?

Now work out what the UK grid can supply and what is required to be built to supply such demand.

Reality is a huge problem for the CAGW crowd, which is why it’s ignored especially by governments.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Rusty
June 8, 2021 1:29 am

Also require rewiring nearly every house in the country to cope with the extra load.

spock
June 7, 2021 4:44 pm

Save the planet, stop cow farts!

cow fart stopper (2).jpg
Spetzer86
Reply to  spock
June 7, 2021 5:03 pm

Not going to be a lot of agriculture, if the fuel goes away. You’ll have a lot fewer cows and corn ethanol at the end of the day.

PCman999
Reply to  Spetzer86
June 7, 2021 9:51 pm

We’ll have a lot less food in general at the end of the day.

Independent
Reply to  spock
June 7, 2021 6:52 pm

We need one of Fauci. After all, many of the things he says come straight from his nether regions.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Independent
June 8, 2021 12:45 am

That’s a new take on the saying, “how do you know a politician is lying? His/her lips are moving!”. Now it’s, “his or her buttocks are wobbling!” 😉

June 7, 2021 4:47 pm

I have noted that all recent training on how to recognize an email as a scam or phishing attempt is that it tries to create a sense of urgency. For example:

5. The message creates a sense of urgency

Scammers know that most of us procrastinate. We receive an email giving us important news, and we decide we’ll deal with it later.

But the longer you think about something, the more likely you are to notice things that don’t seem right.

Maybe you realise that the organisation doesn’t contact you by that email address, or you speak to a colleague and learn that they didn’t send you a document.

Even if you don’t get that ‘a-ha’ moment, coming back to the message with a fresh set of eyes might help reveal its true nature.

That’s why so many scams request that you act now or else it will be too late. This has been evident in every example we’ve used so far.

https://www.itgovernance.co.uk/blog/5-ways-to-detect-a-phishing-email

Wouldn’t it be great if people recognized that the same principle applies to scam messages about the urgency of climate change?

Redge
Reply to  Toby Nixon
June 7, 2021 11:40 pm

Sheeple generally get dragged in by scammers

TonyG
Reply to  Toby Nixon
June 8, 2021 7:51 am

“Sense of urgency” is also old-school TV marketing – “Call Now!” with the countdown clock ticking in the corner.

stinkerp
June 7, 2021 5:00 pm

There needs to be a “live without the thing you’re banning for a year (or month)” sanity-check clause in every government’s laws. If government offices can demonstrate that they can reasonably and economically live without it, then proceed with the ban…at the risk of the fury of the voters.

Last edited 4 months ago by stinkerp
czechlist
June 7, 2021 5:04 pm

call me an old optimist and I may not live long enough to see it but today’s youths are spoiled and at some point they will become so deprived of their luxuries that they will revolt. Antifa consists of disenchanted youth who feel they have been cheated: wait until the rest don’t get what they want.

Redge
Reply to  czechlist
June 7, 2021 11:40 pm

Today’s youth is already revolting

john rattray
Reply to  Redge
June 8, 2021 12:05 am

and has been for the last 150 gene4rations or so

Reply to  Redge
June 16, 2021 7:57 pm

Take the lady out off already

Tony Sullivan
Reply to  czechlist
June 8, 2021 5:45 am

Copy/Paste from an email sent to me from a close friend:

To all the school kids going on strike for climate change, you’re the first generation who’ve required air conditioning in every classroom. You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerized. You spend all day and night on electronic devices.
More than ever you don’t walk or ride bikes to school, but you arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush-hour traffic. You’re the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever. And update perfectly good, expensive, luxury items to stay trendy. Your entertainment comes from electric devices.
Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing, and transport. The more people we have, the more forest and bushland we clear, the more of the environment that’s destroyed.
How about this? Tell your teachers to switch off the aircon, walk or ride to school, switch off your devices and read a book, make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food.
No, none of this will happen, because, ‘you’re selfish, badly educated, virtue-signaling little turds inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a noble cause while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life’.

Earthling2
June 7, 2021 5:09 pm

It’s going to cost a king’s ranson to heat Windsor Castle with electricity. Probably costs a fortune to heat it with a gas fired boiler as well. Electricity is too valuable a product to make thermal heat, which can be done much cheaper with abundant nat gas. And then these geniuses will make electricity with nat gas when the sun goes down, and the wind quits blowing, and then all the losses on making the electricity with gas and subsequent losses all down the line and you are under 50% efficient from the original gas to make the electricity when you could just burn the gas at the final destination with 90% efficiency. Why try ‘fix’ something that ain’t broke.

Redge
Reply to  Earthling2
June 7, 2021 11:41 pm

There’ll be get out of jail free cards for the elite

StephenP
Reply to  Earthling2
June 8, 2021 11:45 pm

I think this article shows what they have done as regards meeting the electricity bills:

http://Www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-24771303

Joe E
June 7, 2021 5:19 pm

14 square miles and all the attendant impacts for 850 MW- only when the sun shines- it can’t be just me that sees this as the most inefficient, stupid scheme ever for that state. Can it? What am I missing?

Earthling2
Reply to  Joe E
June 7, 2021 10:08 pm

Yup…for 4-6 hours a day either side of noon 3 hours, and much reduced output in the winter, at a 15% average yearly efficiency, this amounts to about 125 MW and at a 20% capacity factor, 170 MW. For 20 years on a declining yearly output, losing 1% per year. Grid scale solar just doesn’t make sense. What a waste of resources, given that most of it is also toxic e-waste and can’t be recycled economically.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Earthling2
June 7, 2021 11:18 pm

Believe it or not, there are actually solar farms in Scotland. They produce at 9% of capacity. These were built with gigantic subsidies which are thankfully no longer available. After subsidies for large scale solar farms were reduced in Britain, none have been built. Unfortunately, existing solar farms retained the subsidies.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 8, 2021 12:38 am

Of course, since solar power is now the “cheapest form of new energy generation”, it won’t need subsidies in the future. The same applies to wind power which is also the “cheapest form of new energy generation”.
These quotes have both come from British newspapers in the last week.

Last edited 4 months ago by Bill Toland
Chris Hanley
June 7, 2021 5:21 pm

Also, sailing ships cannot be nearly as large as fossil-fuel-powered ships, require hugely more staff …comment image
Old-style galleys would be great job creators.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 8, 2021 7:21 am

Eco-Nazis and politicians who push their agenda first!

John
June 7, 2021 5:21 pm

Thankyou
This is at least a little encouraging
Lets move net zero to 2030 so we can kill the albatross for good
Then we can have the real conversation about pollution etc and move civilisation forward not backwards

Felix
June 7, 2021 5:44 pm

100% agree. The fact of living in a democracy, even one as shoddy as almost all are these days, puts the politicians in fear of upsetting the masses. Raise the gas price, go ahead, Biden m’boy; the voting public will come after you and make George “Read my lips” Bush cackle in glee.

There’s lots of damage Biden and the Dems can do; but they can no more get rid of fossil fuels than Canute could hold back the tide.

spock
June 7, 2021 5:48 pm

The recent shut down of the oil pipeline in the US was a bitch-slap wakeup call to that dunce Uncle Joe.

It made that knucklehead realize that the US economy is 100% dependent on evil “fossil fuels” and any move by him to cut off the supply to “save the planet” and appease the climate change cult will have dire consequences come election time.

Don
Reply to  spock
June 8, 2021 10:14 am

You’re assuming he’s sufficiently cognitive to recognize that, instead of merely parroting what his handlers tell him to say/do.

Artiem2112
Reply to  spock
June 8, 2021 11:33 am

This is, of course, assuming that the pipeline shutdown was a legitimate “ransomeware” attack – a narrative that I find HIGHLY suspicious.

Earthling2
Reply to  Artiem2112
June 8, 2021 4:17 pm

Made more suspicious now that they ‘recovered’ most of the Bitcoin payment. Probably hacked from the DNC/FBI insider rouge elements of the Deep State to get everyone used to lining up for high gas prices and more inconvenience to come for using evil fossil fuels. I don’t believe much anymore out of officialdom. The leaders of our institutions under the Demons are liars from the NIAID/CDC to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Artiem
Reply to  Earthling2
June 8, 2021 11:49 pm

EXACTLY

Edward Katz
June 7, 2021 5:50 pm

It’s more than a little ironic that the IEA should claim we have to stop fossil fuel development by next year to expedite the fairy tale called net-zero when it, along with the US Energy Information Agency, the Canada Energy Regulator, and several international organizations of the same ilk, continue to predict that by 2050 at least 60% of the world’s primary energy supply will still be generated by fossil fuels. I’ll tend to put my money on the latter.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Edward Katz
June 8, 2021 7:23 am

I’d say that’s still a gross understatement, unless the world suddenly embraces mass construction of Nuclear power plants.

Tom Abbott
June 7, 2021 5:56 pm

From the article: “When I discuss this subject with my climate skeptic friends, most are amazed that I remain an optimist. But good reasons are on my side. While we realists may not have the megaphone at the moment, I am very confident that energy realism will ultimately win out, and much sooner than you might think.”

I think so, too. I’m waiting for the time when the Democrats tell us we are going to have to give up our fossil-fuel-powered cars. I think people are going to reject the idea as absurd.

It hasn’t dawned on most people just what the ramifications of totally electrifying the country would be. They’ll start waking up soon enough when the government starts trying to take their cars away.

gringojay
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 7, 2021 7:17 pm

Cars really don’t need fossil fuel just a little yabba-dabba-doo.

8EAF9F34-6B71-472B-BC44-690BA38F27D1.jpeg
Last edited 4 months ago by gringojay
Artiem2112
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 8, 2021 11:37 am

Reminds me of the Rush song ‘Red Barchetta’.

tygrus
June 7, 2021 6:01 pm

Will Coal & oil become the next commodity to only be obtained via a ‘black market’? More literal as well as figuratively.

Rory Forbes
June 7, 2021 6:20 pm

our “final chance” to avert a “climate catastrophe”:

Does this mean after that deadline they’ll shut their yap about “climate change” and hopefully close their doors for good? You youngsters reading this will have to hold them to that.

LdB
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 8, 2021 1:07 am

It’s the UN when have they ever told the truth or done the right thing.

Ian W
June 7, 2021 6:21 pm

As soon as engineering gets Involved and reality and lifetime costs for systems are considered the unrealistic plans are immediately objected to. The reason that the world uses fossil fuels is that they are commercially successful and have an energy density that makes them useful for transport. Refueling can be done fast and spare fuel can easily be carried.
Moving to unreliable diffuse ‘renewables’ will not work as the cost of collecting all the power is prohibitive and the environmental impact is huge.
But as it is all green new deal virtue signaling the woke companies will just motor on to the precipice – the North Face.

n.n
June 7, 2021 6:28 pm

Get rid of the fossils, keep the hydrocarbons. Semantics matter. We just need to reach critical consensus.

LdB
Reply to  n.n
June 8, 2021 1:08 am

The fossils will die out on there own.

Zig Zag Wanderer
June 7, 2021 7:05 pm

In the UK, and I suspect elsewhere, they may not fine you for not replacing your perfectly usable and economical gas heating/hot water, but they will almost certainly make sure your home is unsaleable. There are massively increasing requirements to be met when selling a residence these days.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 8, 2021 7:27 am

Or they’ll just make sure no fuel is available for it!

Thomas Gasloli
June 7, 2021 7:37 pm

I’m not so optimistic. Given how successful they were at getting most to accept the COVID measure without question, even with the obvious economic destruction, I’m not convinced they can’t get climate measures past the point of return before people act up.

markl
June 7, 2021 7:44 pm

Fossil fuels are the major source of energy in our world for many reasons, none of which renewables provide the answer.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  markl
June 8, 2021 7:29 am

Definitions: “Renewable energy” (Ree-Noo-uhble ENerrGeee) – A solution in search of a problem.

Mike
June 7, 2021 8:21 pm

Nuclear! Why don’t the anti-carbon folks support nuclear? It runs all the time and produces near zero carbon. Also, it takes up a tiny amount of land compared to wind and solar.

Jit
Reply to  Mike
June 8, 2021 12:52 am

The same movement that made new nukes nigh-on-impossible then moved onto fighting against coal and then gas. In the UK our youngest nuke is Sizewell B, which is 25+ years old. After Sizewell B, there were no new nukes until Hinckley C, currently under construction. All the expertise we had in the early 90s is gone, so that we have to import nuclear engineers – the country that built the very first nuclear station to supply electricity to the grid!

When they win one battle, they don’t go home. They move onto the next thing, and the next thing, into battle against increasingly harmless targets.

Rusty
Reply to  Jit
June 8, 2021 1:37 am

Dungeness B has just shut for good.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Jit
June 8, 2021 8:42 am

Jit,

“the country that built the very first nuclear station to supply electricity to the grid”

Calder Hall was built to supply plutonium for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme, electricity to the grid was the cover.

Last edited 4 months ago by Dave Andrews
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike
June 8, 2021 3:19 am

“Nuclear! Why don’t the anti-carbon folks support nuclear?”

Maybe we’ll get nuclear power through the back door.

The U.S. military is developing small nuclear reactors of 1MW to 5MW to use to power military bases and for use in the field. They estimate completion of the project around 2027.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 8, 2021 12:58 pm

Let me know how that’s getting on in, oh, 2028? My prediction – there will be unavoidable delays and cost overruns leading to a completion date estimated in 2035.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
June 9, 2021 3:33 am

The military does have some experience building and operating small nuclear reactors.

observa
June 7, 2021 8:38 pm

I’m not discouraged but they do make it hard to keep optimistic-

‘Cutting planet-warming emissions to “net zero” by 2050 could lift growth and employment but would require an inflation-boosting $160 per tonne carbon price by the end of the decade, an umbrella group of the world’s top central banks said on Monday.’

Facing calls for action with their vast financial firepower, central banks are now contemplating policy options to fight climate change and rely on deep analysis from their Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) to aid their deliberations.’

Only quick shift to ‘net zero’ emissions will boost GDP: report (msn.com)

PCman999
Reply to  observa
June 7, 2021 10:02 pm

Hard to be optimistic when even industry and central bankers have drunk the kool-aid and keep telling us that all the green crap is going to create jobs and boost gdp.

Bill Toland
Reply to  PCman999
June 8, 2021 12:58 am

One of the basic axioms of economics is that anything which increases the cost of energy will reduce the rate of economic growth. Since “renewable” power increases the cost of energy, economic damage is certain. Anybody who tells you that green energy will boost gdp and create jobs is lying.

Last edited 4 months ago by Bill Toland
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 8, 2021 3:29 am

“Since “renewable” power increases the cost of energy, economic damage is certain.”

No doubt about it.

The cost of everything depends on transportation costs. If you raise the price of transportation by taxing, then you raise the price of everything transported, and everyone from the poorest to the richest pays those higher prices.

Transportation taxes are the most counterproductive thing they can do. It will harm the economy very badly.

Our Fool Elites are heading down a deadend road in their efforts to electrify the whole economy.

Will the American people cooperate? This one won’t.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  PCman999
June 8, 2021 3:25 am

“Hard to be optimistic when even industry and central bankers have drunk the kool-aid”

That’s true. I still think even bankers are going to have a hard time getting me to give up my gasoline.

Yes, our Elites are no more immune to lies and propaganda than the rest of us. Money and intelligence don’t mean you can’t be duped. Of course, if being duped benefits you in one way or another, then you don’t care that you have been misled, so it doesn’t benefit you to delve into the details too much.

LdB
Reply to  observa
June 8, 2021 1:10 am

Don’t get discourage just make sure you are ready and when the revolt starts make sure you know which ones are the first against the wall.

PCman999
June 7, 2021 9:42 pm

Ultimately alarmists are too stupid to help themselves – they push to ban safe, efficient, reliable, and cheap natural gas power and heating even though it is the only thing to prop up the ‘sustainable energy’ cult. Banning natural gas will make it bleeding obvious that wind, batteries and solar are not ready for prime time.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  PCman999
June 8, 2021 7:34 am

But how many need to suffer or die to prove that point?

griff
June 8, 2021 12:40 am

the socialist takeover of everything under the cover story of a faux moral crusade to “save the planet.” 

As long as you keep making nonsense statements like this then there’s no chance of winning any argument on climate, or renewables.

Otherwise this is just a rehash of the usual phony arguments…

Solar panels, for example: very many of these can and will go on rooftops, over parking lots even on reservoirs… there are plenty of calculations out there of the suitable roofspace in the USA – go look. Still plenty of space in southern Germany not used for solar panels, despite their massive level of installation, for example.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
June 8, 2021 1:19 pm

Oh griffy – still divorced from reality despite my repeated requests for you to get your mental health looked at.
I suspect that the reasons people still don’t want rooftop solar are the risk of damage to the existing roof during installation, the sheer cost of installation, increased house insurance rates, poor performance, short lifetime, poor aesthetics (they’re ugly), plus they’re so toxic that they have to be treated as hazardous waste on removal. On balance, not something I’d want on my house.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  griff
June 8, 2021 3:11 pm

So, let the market decide:
Surely if solar was so wonderful everyone would already have them ion the roofs? Oh, hang on, that hasn’t happened. People don’t want to pay for these hugely expensive solar boondoggles. It’s jnot ust the installation that costs Griff, it’s the ongoing maintenance that will have to be paid for – when did you last climb out on your roof?

Peta of Newark
June 8, 2021 1:59 am

It’s the story of the Brent Spar, way back when. Was it the precedent for this and soooo much more?

I did a random search for Brent Spar and found:
Quote from it: “Lesson number one: “Today’s public opinion is tomorrow’s law.
Interesting read in its own right

As I recall, plenty folks did put forward the ‘wildlife benefit’ but got over-ruled.

So, what would have been a 7-star Burj Al Arab loaded with goodies from Harrod’s Food Hall for the fishes had to be taken apart at epic cost, both financially and resource-wise, by petulant little children. While Greenpeace banked, how much?
They trash the village to save it while making themselves rich.
nice work huh
otherwise perfect madness

(Don’t anyone let on to my daughter Jess, she has devoted her life to saving turtles. Although, I guess she’ll know already, She knows I’m certifiable just for starters and regularly tells me as much)

Last edited 4 months ago by Peta of Newark
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 8, 2021 3:37 am

She must be doing a good job because I have turtles all over my property I have to check under my car before moving it to make sure I don’t run over one of them.

They say that Turtles stay in the same area all their lives, so don’t move a turtle to another location. Just move it out of the way of danger.

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 8, 2021 3:38 am

I’m not (yet) sharing the author’s optimism. For the moment I take the position that the idiocy will turn the corner to oblivion only when several exponents of Big Green hang from lampposts.

ozspeaksup
June 8, 2021 3:49 am

Reality (and huge costs) tend to wake many up

Mark
June 8, 2021 4:32 am

You can guarantee a row-back by policy makers the more the realities of the laws of physics and thermodynamics smack them in the face…

Sara
June 8, 2021 4:33 am

We are rapidly reaching the point of no return for the planet. We face a triple environmental emergency — biodiversity loss, climate disruption and escalating pollution. . . . Science tells us these next 10 years are our final chance to avert a climate catastrophe. . . . Guterrez

Okay, Tony, but WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION, other than running your mouth and squawking like a panic-stricken chicken?? Hmmmm????

Yeah, you don’t have one, but you sure do want CASH, dontcha, Tootsie? /sarc

This really begins to seem more like a fad than anything else, and that alone has turned my willingness to listen to alternatives into slightly sarcastic skepticism. I don’t want those blankety-blank turbines anywhere near me, period. I’m not crazy about coal-fired power plants, because nukes are better, last longer, and in the long-term, cheaper to run, AND they reduce costs to the consumer. That’s ME and YOU, peeps.

While I’m not going to give up gas-powered cars, I’m more than aware that oil is a resource created by Mama Nature, and is finite, so what is the long-term (meaning decadal) outlook on that resource? No one has come up with an answer to that so far, or even addressed it. And no, I’m really not crazy about reverting to an 18th century lifestyle with a cozy little 2-room log cabin and a fire to cook the food and heat the house. Not interested in using an outhouse, either, since no one wants to clean out the cesspit.

What we take for granted right now is, in a word, finite, and that is what should also be addressed but is being ignored.

Bruce Cobb
June 8, 2021 5:42 am

Never underestimate the power of The Stupid, especially since it has invaded every aspect of our lives. Unless and until we have reached Peak Stupid, the Climate Charade will continue. For example when prices rise, for whatever reason, people tend to blame “greedy” corporations, especially the “greedy” oil and gas companies.

PaulH
June 8, 2021 6:15 am

The headline photo shows one of the most important sources of carbon dioxide. 🙂 🍺

GeoNC
June 8, 2021 6:19 am

Maybe my coffee hasn’t fully kicked in yet, but something seems off in this article. At about 300 pounds per barrel, it takes roughly 7 barrels of oil per ton. 115 million barrels would weigh 850 million tons, not vice versa. Not a lot of oil to be exporting for what would likely be a massively expensive project.

June 8, 2021 6:28 am

See #2 below: the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

Told you so – 19 years ago.

Want to worry about something real? Worry about global cooling. It’s happening now, even as idiot politicians have compromised our energy systems with costly, intermittent, green energy nonsense. See #3 below, also published in 2002.

Regards, Allan

Our 2002 predictions – #1 and 2 were easy – slam dunks. #3 was difficult – also correct.
 
In 2002, co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton U, Ottawa and Allan MacRae, P.Eng. (now retired), McGill, Queens, U of Alberta, published:
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
 
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
 
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
 
Allan MacRae published in the Calgary Herald on September 1, 2002, based on communication with Dr Tim Patterson:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/#comment-63579
 
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
 
MacRae updated his global cooling prediction in 2013, based on cold events that occurred starting circa 2008 near the end of Solar Cycle 23:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/study-predicts-the-sun-is-headed-for-a-dalton-like-solar-minimum-around-2050/#comment-1147149
 
3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”
________________
 

In 2019, expert meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and I co-authored a paper describing the late planting in 2018 and 2019 and the huge Great Plains crop failure of 2019 due to cold, wet weather.

THE REAL CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS COOLING, AND IT MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED October 27, 2019

Planting was ~one month across the Great Plains of North America for crop years 2018 and 2019. In 2018 the growing season was warm and the crop recovered, but in 2019 there was a huge crop failure across the Great Plains. In 2019 fully 30% of the huge USA corn crop was never planted because of wet ground. Much of the grain crop across the Great Plains was severely harmed because of early cold and snow in the Fall.

Now we have this brutal winter of 2020-2921 and very cold spring in 2020-2021. Nailed it – in 2002!

For very cold events all around the world, see Electroverse.net

Crop losses are already significant this year, especially in Europe. Worrisome.
 

Gordon A. Dressler
June 8, 2021 6:56 am

Look no further than this wisdom:

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.”
— H.L. Mencken, his book Minority Report, first published in 1956.

EWSTX
June 8, 2021 7:05 am

They locked us down for a year and a half. They stole a national election. They have imposed vile and destructive brainwashing on our children. I am not optimistic that we can fight back against them. I don’t think the American people have the will or the intelligence to fight back.

Jeffery P
June 8, 2021 7:57 am

It’s going to get worse before it gets better. We’re in for a lot of pain, especially if the progressives legalize stealing elections by passing the “For the People Act” into law.

Paul Penrose
June 8, 2021 9:38 am

Whenever anybody says “the science tells us”, you can be sure they don’t know anything about science. Ignore them.

Walter Sobchak
June 8, 2021 6:09 pm

The author of the following is a well known economist:

“How to fight climate change and put pressure on China” by Irwin M. Stelzer | June 08, 2021
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/how-to-fight-climate-change-and-put-pressure-on-china

Existing policies aimed at arresting the pace of global warming aren’t working. China, the world’s largest emitter, has reiterated its refusal to reduce carbon emissions or curtail financing of new coal-fired generating stations at home and abroad. Japan and Australia have told the International Energy Agency that they have no intention of taking the steps the IEA deems necessary to reach the goal of zero net emissions by 2050.

Add to these Russia, Saudi Arabia, and India, and it becomes clear there will be no voluntary international consensus to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 — or ever. The game that has been played since delegates of some 200 nations inked the 2015 Paris Agreement is over. Game, set, and match to the emitting team. Paris has fallen.

TomR
June 10, 2021 1:32 am

It’s incompatible with democracy when a government in 2021 tells a country of 2035 what it is supposed to do. This would mean the 2035 majority has no say in it’s affairs, it has to follow orders programmed in 2021.
It’s also incompatible with dictatorship, as a dictator of 2035 has no say in affairs in 2035, he has to follow a program created in 2021.

%d bloggers like this: