“Green” Media Misrepresents World’s Energy Reality

By Vijay Jayaraj

Fossil fuels are out. Coal is no longer king. The Middle East faces an oil crisis. These are typical headlines in the mainstream media.

Unreported is the hard reality of the world’s fossil-dependent developing economies. This story goes untold because media in the developed West seek to create a perception of an inevitable transition to energy markets free of hydrocarbons..

Whatever is behind the media’s ignorance — or neglect — of the proliferation of coal, oil and natural gas, it creates a false impression among the public that an energy sector free of fossil fuels is feasible. It is not. Fossil fuels are projected to be the largest primary source of energy for many decades.

Who would have thought that coal would be one of the most sought-after primary fuels after the anti-fossil pledges at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow last year? Coal prices have reached historic highs, courtesy a post-pandemic increase in demand from Asia-Pacific.

For close observers of energy markets, this is no surprise. But for others, the demand for coal may seem an anomaly after being bombarded with the annual bombast of climate-conference attendees promising to abandon fossil fuels.

Most westerners don’t understand that the demand for fossil fuel in developing economies is extremely high. Between 1990 and 2020, coal consumption in the U.S. almost halved and was reduced to just one-third in the EU. Despite this, global coal consumption increased from 5.2 billion tons in 1990 to 8.5 billion tons in 2016. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Coal Report 2021 says that global power generation from coal increased about nine percent in 2021, producing “more power from coal in 2021 than ever before.”  This is because emerging economies are beginning to use more coal as domestic energy demand increases and will continue to do so well into the future.

Consider India, a country that will outpace every other with its rate of increasing energy consumption. IEA reports that the subcontinent’s growth rate of 25 percent will be the highest of any over the next two decades.  By 2030, it will consume more energy than the entire European Union, making it the third largest consumer behind China and the U.S.

Consistent with this, India has revised upward by 20 percent its target for domestic coal production — to at least 1.2 billion tons coal by 2024. Demand is expected to reach 1.5 billion tons by 2030.

The country expects domestic mines to meet most of the demand, except for industrial processes that require higher quality coal from countries like Australia and South Africa. To meet its target, the government has relaxed some environmental regulations for the mining sector and is improving transportation infrastructure serving mines.

As the global leader in fossil fuel consumption, China is moving in a similar direction. Between 2013 and 2016, China’s coal production declined. While most of the world thought that it wouldn’t be able return to previous levels of output, the country did just that — and more.

China has steadily increased production since 2016 despite being a member of the Paris climate agreement, When China’s coal production for 2021 was reported, western media houses like the UK’s Guardian lamented that the all-time record high of 4.07 billion tons — four percent higher than 2020’s — was a “blow to climate campaigners months after the UN’s COP26 climate talks in Glasgow.”

But this production record may not be anywhere close to levels China may have to achieve in the future to match its rapidly growing economy and its need for energy in the winter. Along with that of coal, China’s demand for oil is on the rise with no end in sight.

Overall, the developing economies’ need for fossil fuels is so great that OPEC — the consortium of oil producing countries —  forecasts a sustained demand for oil well into the second half of this century. OPEC predicts that global demand for oil may peak around 2040, although many predictions of such peaks have been wrong in the past.

The reality that fossil fuels will dominate the global energy sector for many decades renders meaningless the sacrifices people in the West are being asked to make — high energy prices and shortages — to purportedly save the planet from the fabricated crisis of global warming.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a Master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India

This commentary was first published on February 22, 2022 at RealClear Energy.

5 27 votes
Article Rating
130 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joseph Zorzin
February 24, 2022 6:05 am

Meanwhile, the climatistas keep the alarm bells ringing:

Why Methane Is a Large and Underestimated Threat to Climate Goals

Scientists say climate negotiators have misjudged the effects of rising methane emissions and warn the potent greenhouse gas could imperil hopes of meeting mid-century climate targets. The key, they say, is to focus on cutting those emissions and their big short-term impact.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-methane-is-a-large-and-underestimated-threat-to-climate-goals

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 24, 2022 6:25 am

They delusionally think that natural gas companies proactively waste their sales product, farmers induce flatulence in their cows, and rice paddies are bubbling cauldrons of methane. Cut those sources in half and 0.2 C of potential warming goes away…and all it costs is some minor food and shelter issues.

Scissor
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 24, 2022 7:14 am

Hopefully John Kerry can get James Taylor to travel to Ukraine to set things straight and stop the fighting because of its dangerous emissions.

You’ve got a friend.

Ron Long
Reply to  Scissor
February 24, 2022 9:19 am

On that front, John Ketchup Kerry just made a statement that “…he fears Russia-Ukraine war will distract from climate change.” Women and children are being blown apart by Russia invading Ukraine and Kerry worries about climate change? Like it’s a parallel war for survival? Upsetting.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ron Long
February 24, 2022 10:39 am

You have to get your priorities right! After all, CAGW is an ‘existential’ threat to everyone, not just Ukrainians. /sarc

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Ron Long
February 24, 2022 12:22 pm

Kerry and his ilk live in an alternative reality, you know the kind of reality one reads about in SF books.

TonyG
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
February 24, 2022 1:58 pm

Michael, I read a LOT of SF and I have never encountered a “reality” as bonkers as theirs.

2hotel9
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 24, 2022 7:42 am

Wow, you peed in somebody’s rice bowl with that one!

Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 24, 2022 8:21 am

That 0.2C assumes the IPCC is correct about the ECS and they could not be more wrong where even their lower bound is in excess of 2 w/m^2 of surface emissions per w/m^2 of forcing and violates COE, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and basic geometry where the energy absorbed by the atmosphere by GHG’s and clouds is emitted across twice the area from which it’s absorbed.

The fact that so many, including some skeptics, can’t see this most obvious error is testament to how thoroughly the IPCC has misrepresented the science by asserting fake complexity that serves no other purpose than to provide wiggle room to subvert basic physical laws.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 24, 2022 10:37 am

Cut those sources in half and 0.2 C of potential warming goes away …

Assuming that the Climate Sensitivity estimate is correct, AND that the water vapor absorption bands don’t effectively saturate the methane absorption.

Bill Rocks
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 24, 2022 11:32 am

Don’t forget about termites, a major source of methane.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Bill Rocks
February 25, 2022 10:45 am

A major source of CO2!

Graham
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 24, 2022 1:27 pm

Methane is a manufactured threat conjured up by green activists at the Kyoto climate accord.
If rigorous scientific studies had been undertaken back then the world would have heard no more about methane.
Methane is an extremely small portion of the atmosphere, under 2 millionths and it can never cause the earth to warm to the extent that it could ever be be measured.
Methane levels flatlined from 1998 untill 2008 so where was the problem ?
Coal production also flatlined over those 10 years ,so where was the problem ?
Since 2008 coal production soared from 4.7 billion tonnes to 8.5 billion tonnes in 2018.
I have no problem with countries using coal to produce energy .but I do take issue with governments and activists who want to control farmed livestock numbers because of the perceived threat of methane emissions .
I have stated many times before that livestock methane emissions are a cycle ,that all fodder consumed by livestock has absorbed CO2 and the minute amount of methane emitted during digestion breaks down in 8 years into CO2 Nd water vapour .
Not one additional atom of carbon is added to the atmosphere.
Our stupid government here in New Zealand are trying to restrict our livestock numbers and are going to tax farmers for their so called carbon pollution .

fretslider
February 24, 2022 6:20 am

“Fossil fuels are out. Coal is no longer king. The Middle East faces an oil crisis. These are typical headlines in the mainstream media.”

Lets flag down a cab to Real Street. Now that Russia has invaded Ukraine prices are going to go much higher. OPEC has just declined to increase production (I wonder why?) so in the UK it came as something of a shock when the answer to the price hikes in gas came from our very own Climate Change Committee. Never mind fracking….

“Oil and gas drilling in North Sea must end

Committee on Climate Change says drilling won’t drive down household bills”

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/oil-gas-drilling-new-north-sea-ccc-b2021752.html

There you have it, proof that increased supply does not lower prices. Does anybody really believe that bollox?

Parliament does. We could have cheap gas, they ‘d much rather we suffered. The laws of supply and demand have not changed, they are now the subject of… denial.

griff
Reply to  fretslider
February 24, 2022 6:26 am

The gas gets sold on the international market at international rates.

It can’t be reserved for the UK at some (imaginary) lower price.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 6:27 am

Not at home it doesn’t

Good grief, griff, where did you do economics?

NB Does anybody really believe that bollox?

griff does.

wow.

Last edited 3 months ago by fretslider
MarkW
Reply to  fretslider
February 24, 2022 7:54 am

The ability to believe bollox was why griff was hired in the first place.

Last edited 3 months ago by MarkW
Joel O’Bryan(@joelobryan)
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 6:44 am

griff, you clearly flunked microeconomics.

Scissor
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 24, 2022 7:20 am

Griff is like those people who crossed the Canadian border into Washington state to fill plastic bags with cheap gasoline.

Redge
Reply to  Scissor
February 24, 2022 11:08 am

Fill plastic bags with wind energy

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 7:42 am

More lies from the lie spewing liar.

Boff Doff
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 9:55 am

So UK produced gas doesn’t help the UK but Indian produced coal helps India.

Climate Science in action folks. Enjoy.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 10:46 am

Are you claiming that it isn’t within the power of Parliament to pass legislation to give priority to Great Britain consumers for North Sea gas? They could impose export taxes that make it economically attractive to sell gas to domestic consumers.

LdB
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 5:26 pm

The country owns the resources not some company … surely you aren’t that stupid that you don’t know that.

Most intelligent countries force companies to provide a percentage to the domestic market and control the cost. That is the cost for a company being given access to a countries resource. It’s pretty much the norm.

MarkW
Reply to  LdB
February 24, 2022 7:12 pm

So the country owns all the resources. I thought that was called communism.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  fretslider
February 24, 2022 6:51 am

“OPEC has just declined to increase production…”

time to tell the Saudis that if they don’t crank up production- America will no longer protect them from the many terrorists organizations who want to topple them. After all, it’s a criminal family that owns the nation and all its resources- lots of people don’t like them.

jeffery p
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 24, 2022 7:03 am

The Biden regime is very cool to Saudi Arabia because they want to court favor with Iran. Biden will bend over backward to accommodate Iran because he believes a worthless agreement with the Ayatollahs will increase his international standing.

So don’t count on having much leverage with the Saudis right now.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  jeffery p
February 24, 2022 7:26 am

Biden cozying up to the Mad Mullahs of Iran is exactly the reason the Saudis won’t help him out. The Mad Mullahs are the enemies of the Saudis (and just about everyone else).

Biden is helping Saudi Arabia’s enemies. I think Biden plans to give the Mad Mullahs hundreds of millions of dollars in the next few days to use as they please. Biden is not very smart. He thinks he’s smart. That makes it worse.

StephenP
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2022 7:55 am

He seems to be behaving like Field Marshall Montgomery’s “enthusiastic idiot” causing chaos and confusion, with disaster following in his wake
Viz: Afghanistan withdrawal, US energy policy, immigration policy etc.

StephenP
Reply to  StephenP
February 24, 2022 12:24 pm

And now Ukraine.
How would all these have turned out if Trump was still president?
Just asking.
No doubt there are more “interesting times” to come.

Last edited 3 months ago by StephenP
Tom Abbott
Reply to  StephenP
February 25, 2022 4:47 am

If Trump was president instead of Biden:

The price of oil and gasoline would be a lot lower. People would have a lot more money in their pockets than they do now. The U.S. economy would be thriving.

Lower oil prices would mean less money in Putin’s pockets. Less money for foreign military adventures.

The U.S. would be able to supply large amounts of natural gas to Europe, allowing Europe to get out from under Putin’s natural gas blackmail, and allowing them to put much harsher sanctions on Putin.

A lot would depend on Putin’s mental attitude. If he insisted on going ahead with an invasion of Ukraine, Trump would be in pretty much the same unprepared boat as Biden.

The security situation in Europe has been neglected for decades and it will take a while to get it up to what is necessary regardless of who is president right at this time.

I do think Trump would do a much better job of fixing the situation than would Biden. Biden is a disaster in normal times, and he is worse in times like this.

I don’t know if Trump being elected a second time would have deterred Putin from making a try for Ukraine, but I think the whole world would be better off if Trump had won.

Biden does everything wrong. To get on the right track, we would have to do everything just the opposite of what Biden wants to do.

Biden is dangerously clueless and has been all his life, the only difference now, is he is in a postion to put us all in danger with his corruption and stupidity.

The U.S. has the worst possible leadership at this critical time. And I’m not talking just about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, I’m talking about all the radical Democrats who have collectively put us in this situation. If Biden and Harris suddenly left the stage and the remaining Democrats were still in charge, nothing about our situation would get better. They are all dangerously clueless and delusional. They don’t live in the real world. None of them.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  StephenP
February 24, 2022 1:30 pm

What immigration policy?

StephenP
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 24, 2022 1:41 pm

The lack of.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  StephenP
February 25, 2022 4:30 am

Yes, that sounds like Biden.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  StephenP
February 25, 2022 10:51 am

He’s beginning to be as farcical as Chief Inspector Clouseau.

Only he’s not remotely funny.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  jeffery p
February 24, 2022 10:50 am

Biden will bend over backward to accommodate Iran …

He will more likely just get his son to bend over forward …

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 24, 2022 8:40 am

The problem for OPEC is now that oil may (will?) hit $120/bbl is that high price WILL produce a global business cycle recession. A global recession will decrease petroleum demand and result in a collapse oil prices once again.

Derg
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 24, 2022 10:25 am

Do you really think so?

My guess is China will buy oil and bury it in the ground. It would be stupid if they didn’t.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 24, 2022 10:29 am

it’ll also result in the collapse of woke governments- as the public wonders why all those huge solar and wind “farms” aren’t producing all that the label says

n.n
Reply to  fretslider
February 24, 2022 7:06 am

Supply, demand,Keystone XL, Green blight, and shared responsibility.

Willem post
February 24, 2022 6:20 am

The thawing Tundra will emit much larger quantities of CO2 and Methane each year than is emitted by all humans and animals, each year.

Even if humans reduced their CO2 to zero, the tundra would continue to emit.

Spending any money on RE is totally futile, plus we have at least 200 years of fossil left.

Last edited 3 months ago by Willem post
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Willem post
February 24, 2022 10:31 am

but the tundra will start growing shrubery and trees- sucking up CO2- a lot more than moss and lichen- there will be far greater biodiversity

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Willem post
February 24, 2022 10:59 am

The thawing Tundra will emit much larger quantities of CO2 and Methane each year …

It is already happening.

griff
February 24, 2022 6:25 am

India has revised upward by 20 percent its target for domestic coal production’ – yes it has… it has constantly tried to up domestic production for a decade, but that is to replace expensive imports.

Disputin
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 6:29 am

Have you any references for that?

fretslider
Reply to  Disputin
February 24, 2022 6:44 am

Is the pope a buddhist?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Disputin
February 24, 2022 11:00 am

Very rarely does he produce any citations other than UK propaganda rags, and he often misinterprets just what the article is saying.

Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 6:35 am

India’s energy usage has doubled in the last 20 years and the share that renewables play in that has been cut in half, of course only if you count hydroelectric as a renewable.

jeffery p
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 7:30 am

Is India’s coal consumption going up or down? Focus, griff, focus.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 7:57 am

In the meantime, their total consumption of coal keeps going up.

Burgher King
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 8:15 am

griff: “India has revised upward by 20 percent its target for domestic coal production’ – yes it has… it has constantly tried to up domestic production for a decade, but that is to replace expensive imports.”

Exactly what India would do if it intended to keep coal as a primary source of energy for the long term and it also had sufficient coal resources to sustain production for the long term.

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 8:37 am

” India has revised upward by 20 percent its target for domestic coal production … to replace expensive imports

That is what wise people do!… If they have their own resources, why would they prefer to buy the stuff more expensive from outside?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 8:55 am

According to the IEA recent report on Coal 2021 India’s use of coal is expected to rise by 129 million tonnes by 2024. It can only meet that rise from either ramping up domestic production or by importing the coal. Either way its coal use is definitely rising.

And for your delectation griff over the same period China’s use of coal is expected to rise by 135 million tonnes.

https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2021

Last edited 3 months ago by Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 4:32 pm

The gas gets sold on the international market at international rates. It can’t be reserved for the UK at some (imaginary) lower price.

…and, in this same post…

‘India has revised upward by 20 percent its target for domestic coal production’ – yes it has… it has constantly tried to up domestic production for a decade, but that is to replace expensive imports.

Any more proof needed that Griff doesn’t even read the talking points?

Disputin
February 24, 2022 6:25 am

“…sacrifices people in the West are being asked to make..”

“…sacrifices people in the West are being forced to make…”

There, that reads better.

n.n
Reply to  Disputin
February 24, 2022 7:09 am

Sacrifices by Choice… uh, choice, and force. They want to have their… never mind, and keep her… it, too.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Disputin
February 24, 2022 11:06 am

Only masochists and zealots voluntarily ask for pain. If they were free to make choices, almost none of the sane people in the West would voluntarily make the sacrifices. They are clearly being forced to make the sacrifices by zealots in charge.

Graham
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 24, 2022 3:48 pm

You are right Clyde.
Our climate change minister insists that we male sacrifices for the common good .BUT what did James Shaw do when it came to GOP 26 .
He flew a plane load of hangers on with him to the other side of the world to Glasgow from New Zealand.do as I say not as I do is the message from those wanting us to restrict our energy consumption .
So many things are now made in China and China emits the most Carbon Dioxide of any country in the world .
Thats OK according to many governments in power .Make our countries poorer to look good at the UN then buy goods that we need from Asia as that is then their emissions that are counted .
This is the nonsense that happens when governments are driven by ideology instead of common sense .
The coal is mined in Australia but the emissions are counted in China .
Can any one tell me if that is the case why emissions allocated to food produced in New Zealand .but consumed in China are not attributed to China ?

Spetzer86
February 24, 2022 6:33 am

Just to point out, but that horse in the lead picture isn’t a unicorn. I’m also going to make a guess regarding the sexual activity status of the woman…

Scissor
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 24, 2022 7:23 am

Maybe she identifies it as a unicorn.

Doc C
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 24, 2022 8:45 am

But it is wearing a party hat.

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 24, 2022 9:01 am

The horse is looking rather bored with the whole thing.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 24, 2022 10:52 am

Is this a unicorn, then?

WIN_20211119_12_32_20_Pro.jpg
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 24, 2022 11:07 am

The picture did look rather phallic to me.

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
February 24, 2022 6:34 am

“Between 2013 and 2016, China’s coal production declined.”

Coal use declined during high solar max TSI; coal use increased after low solar min TSI.

comment image

Thanx Vijay.

Joel O’Bryan(@joelobryan)
Reply to  Bob Weber
February 24, 2022 6:49 am

This is called cherry picking Bob.
also note: the Sun is always “hot.”

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 24, 2022 1:54 pm

Major O’Bryan, I stated a fact; are you claiming they are unrelated?

“Hot sun” vs “cold sun” is a euphanism for the effect of the sun’s activity above or below my solar ocean decadal warming threshold as indicated in Fig. 5 above.

comment image

The hot vs cold sun temperature effect is evident in the tropical SST:

comment image

The Fig. 5 from my previous comment was part of my 2018 AGU poster. When I was in Washington DC for the fall AGU meeting in that December, when it was very cold, I contacted the Department of Energy to inform them we would need more energy than usual to carry us through the solar minimum. This conviction was due to the the work I do and present here all the time. Haven’t we seen harder winters in the last few years and didn’t we need more energy? This is due to the effect of long-duration TSI, the “cold sun” tropical cooling effect that resulted in the La Niña.

Rich Lentz(@usurbrain)
Reply to  Bob Weber
February 24, 2022 12:57 pm

And how much coal has China imported from Australia, and others?

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
Reply to  Rich Lentz
February 24, 2022 1:56 pm

The subject is about how much coal China consumes, not produces.

Joel O’Bryan(@joelobryan)
February 24, 2022 6:52 am

Putin’s military aggression into Ukraine is directly the result of the West’s Climate policies, that driving up the costs of fossil fuels.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 24, 2022 7:31 am

Europe’s reluctance to deal adequately with the Russian invasion of Ukraine is tied directly to the West’s climate policies. The Europeans have made themselves dependent on a Russian madman and murderous dictator for their electrical power. Real smart.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2022 8:33 am

Putin and his advisors correctly see a global famine coming as aresult of the West’s insane anti-fossil fuel policies. Fossil fuel made fertilizers feed half the global population. All modern farm machinery (tractors, harvesters, trucks for grain transport) runs on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels prices are already going much higher under the West’s War on Fossil Fuels. Grain foods and meat (animals fed by grains) is 90% – 95% of our calories and protein comes as a result of burning fossil fuels.
Ukraine has long been known as the Bread Basket of Europe. Famine has long been the disaster for everyday Russians, and it has always come from grain harvest shortages (natural forces and man-induced).

Put all of that together and Putin knows he MUST control Ukraine to be assured of feeding his Russian people, stay in power, and to continue to have leverage over Europe with food, and not just energy.
The US, Canada and Australia farmers are going to have to come to Europe’s food rescue in a few years. And we’ll need copious grain harvests to do it. And that means more fossil fuels, not less.

The Green’s Climate Scam will ultimately have to collapse due to the sheer necessity of survival for the West.

AndyHce
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 24, 2022 9:56 am

lack of survival for the west certainly seems to be the goal. The real war is between the green blob and the people.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 24, 2022 7:16 pm

I wonder if the New York Times will be able to earn another Pulitzer for covering up a famine in the Ukraine as Russia steals all their food to keep the Russian people from revolting.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2022 8:54 am

Totally agree Tom.

I have argued numerous times in the past that any degree of dependency on Russian fossil fuels from Putin puts the U.S. and Western Europe at a significant disadvantage if a crisis with Russia were ever to come about. Now that crisis is here, and we need to realize that we have been contributing to the funding of the Russian war machine that is currently invading Ukraine as I write this.

One would think that the crisis would cause Biden and our European allies to wake up to the need for greater energy self-sufficiency (and I’m not talking about wind and solar here), but I fear that it will just drive them all deeper into the wind and solar cult.

Under Trump, we were on our way to becoming energy self-sufficient, but not any more. If the energy crisis in Europe coupled with the Russian invasion of Ukraine does not make the West realize the stupidity of not pursuing energy self-sufficiency, then nothing will. And again, I am not talking wind and solar here.

At this point in time, Biden’s cancellation of the KXL pipeline when he took office demonstrates just how clueless he is. God help us all.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 24, 2022 9:55 am

He cancelled KXL because it was a campaign promise he made to Green Hard Left to support him during his campaign. That’s why we must NOT vote for any Democrat.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2022 11:14 am

Ideology usually blinds people to reality. Those who have drunk of the CAGW kool-aid are little better than someone taking an LSD ‘trip.’

Derg
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 24, 2022 10:28 am

I think Putin’s aggression has everything to do with CIA involvement in Ukraine along with the Obama administration…do you remember Eff the EU?
🤓

Paul Johnson
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 24, 2022 12:00 pm

Could the Biden Administration please now explain to the people of Ukraine how projections of a few degrees of warming in the 22nd century are the real existential threat? 

Joseph Zorzin
February 24, 2022 6:54 am

Lots of people in America and Canada are getting their wood stoves back in use. We live in an ocean of wood- the only real clean and green renewable energy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 24, 2022 7:32 am

My wood-burning stove is ready to go.

It has saved my bacon on more than one occasion.

DaveinCalgary
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 24, 2022 8:03 am

Not so clean in my part of the Canadian Rockies when the winter temperature inversions trap the smoke in the valley bottom. It’s dreadful in a mountain town. Although that could be more a function of tourists using inefficient fireplaces rather than proper heating stoves.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
February 24, 2022 10:27 am

the newest wood stoves have much “cleaner” smoke – with catalytic converters

AndyHce
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 24, 2022 9:59 am

The majority live in cities without any ready supply possible and a large percentage of those live in apartment complexes that can’t possible convert anyway.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  AndyHce
February 24, 2022 10:28 am

well, when they’re freezing in the dark- they may decide to move out into the boondocks where wood is abundant- though of course they’ll find themselves in the midst of Trump supporters

n.n
February 24, 2022 7:04 am

It is noteworthy that there are proper points of distinction between “Green”, “green”, and green contexts.

Last edited 3 months ago by n.n
Peta of Newark
February 24, 2022 7:07 am

There aren’t any particular shades or colours of media – only specific reporters assigned to certain subjects

The entire business of modern media is about misrepresentation, or especially = Exaggeration. Cracking trivial stuff up to be something it’s not.
Often called ‘lying’ and why not, that is exactly what it is.

IOW; All (main stream) media misrepresents everything

But it has purpose – Advertising = the selling of useless tat and junk, more oft than not manufactured in China and releasing insane amounts of CO2 in the process

Contemporary Main Stream Media has got to be ## The Most Hypocritical Train Wreck there ever was.

## 2nd only to all modern western governments, governments that are all financial and politically bankrupt – requiring constantly increasing consumption & prices to maintain the illusion of growth and prosperity.
aka: A Pyramid or Ponzi(?) Scheme

Almost everybody, Greens and Skeptics included, have bought into the illusion.
But there is really only one place where prosperity actually comes from = It is no coincidence that Rich Countries have (had) ‘Rich’ Farmland Soil.

There are no free lunches out there.

It was ‘a saying‘ amongst farming folks with whom I mingled that, if you ever found yourself buying in feed and forage for your animals – your farming days were over.

Metinks that applies across the/all boards – e.g. why can’t we in the west make our own plastic tat, or energy, any more?

Last edited 3 months ago by Peta of Newark
jeffery p
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 24, 2022 8:04 am

Journalism is a business. Viewers/readers/listeners are the product and the customers are the advertisers.

Journalists, however, are products of the thought control factories we call higher education. It’s no wonder they see things through a distorted lens. They aren’t trained as journalists, they are trained as activists. Standards of objectivity and fairness aren’t taught. Curiosity — simply asking “why” or “is it true” is not part of the mindset.

Let’s don’t forget journalism isn’t the career it used to be. Many brighter people who might be drawn to a career in journalism chose more lucrative and stable professions instead. Others who don’t are assimulated into the hive mind shy away from journalism

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  jeffery p
February 24, 2022 11:25 am

The good news is that those in the business of manufacturing ‘bird cage liners’ are hurting financially. The local Dayton newspaper apparently has its papers printed elsewhere, and seems to be pushing digital subscriptions currently.

I suspect that internet users tend to read online news that they can identify with politically, which probably leads to further polarization. I think that the MSM is reaping what they have sown. I don’t know that any of them have the wisdom to see what they are doing to their careers and the country.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 24, 2022 11:18 am

Often called ‘lying’ and why not, that is exactly what it is.

It is often lying by omission, also called Cherry Picking.

Tom Abbott
February 24, 2022 7:11 am

From the article: “Most westerners don’t understand that the demand for fossil fuel in developing economies is extremely high.”

Griff, do you see the error of your ways yet?

griff
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2022 8:35 am

I see developing economies investing in renewables… which is especially useful for those that have limited fossil fuel resources within their own territory.

I see country after country cancelling new coal plant…

fretslider
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 8:58 am

Should’ve gone to Specsavers

MarkW2
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 9:04 am

And those same countries are going to be even more badly hurt now that Putin’s invaded Ukraine as energy prices will sky-rocket even further. The Germans, in particular, are now supporting a tyrant every bit as bad as Hitler and Stalin, walking into other people’s countries for no reason whatever.

Even Boris has realised that reliance on Russian energy has to end. The Germans, however, are stuck with it. That must make them feel really good. What an absurd position the West has put itself into, relying on an aggressive dictator for its most important resource: energy.

You really could not make it up.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW2
February 24, 2022 2:04 pm

“What an absurd position the West has put itself into, relying on an aggressive dictator for its most important resource: energy.

You really could not make it up.”

German politicians are really stupid. Dangerously stupid.

But they are not alone, other EU nations are also dependent on Putin’s bloody natural gas.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 9:14 am

True there have been a number of recent cancellations of new coal plants but you completely ignore the fact that between 2000 and 2020 the world doubled its coal fired capacity, adding over 1000GW , to bring the total to around 2045GW.

That 1000GW still has decades of life before it.

LARRY K SIDERS
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 11:09 am

Developing Nations are investing in coal. Every other energy source for electricity is 2 to 10 times more expensive.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 12:00 pm

As usual, griff sees only what his handlers tell him to see.
Outside of Europe, the US and Australia, countries are building coal plants, not cancelling them.

LdB
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2022 5:29 pm

I see country after country now with problems addicted to Russian gas and trying to impose sanctions 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  LdB
February 25, 2022 5:05 am

Note that Biden yesterday did not sanction the Russian oil companies. I guess ole Biden wants them to keep pumping oil so Biden can continue to buy 545,000 barrels a day from Putin.

The Keystone Pipeline that Biden cancelled would have supplied about 850,000 barrels a day to the U.S.

So now stupid Biden policies has the U.S. dependent on Russian oil.

Biden doesn’t have a clue. Worst President Evah!

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
February 24, 2022 7:15 am

From the article: “Consider India, a country that will outpace every other with its rate of increasing energy consumption. IEA reports that the subcontinent’s growth rate of 25 percent will be the highest of any over the next two decades. By 2030, it will consume more energy than the entire European Union, making it the third largest consumer behind China and the U.S.”

That’s impressive.

The U.S. is currently growing at seven percent, but that won’t last if Biden’s destruction of the fossil fuel industry continues.

Raising gasoline prices by $0.80 per gallon reduces the US GDP by about one percent.

Steve Case
February 24, 2022 7:30 am

“Green” Media Misrepresents World’s Energy Reality”
__________________________________________

The Media Misrepresents Everything

“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed.  
If you read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.” Mark Twain

Tom Abbott
February 24, 2022 7:36 am

From the article: “The reality that fossil fuels will dominate the global energy sector for many decades renders meaningless the sacrifices people in the West are being asked to make — high energy prices and shortages — to purportedly save the planet from the fabricated crisis of global warming.”

That’s the bottom line. The Alarmists will never be successful at reducing CO2 going into the atmosphere, certainly not by any date they have set.

It’s over fellas! Give it up. It’s like the Wuhan virus, we are going to have to live with increased amounts of CO2. Fortunately, only good things come from increased amounts of CO2. Despite what the alarmists claim with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Cancel COP27. What’s the point of having it?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2022 10:53 am

The point of COP27 is the same as all the other gabfests: Show the intellectual bankruptcy of the Left. “The Sky Is Falling” only works for so long.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2022 11:29 am

What’s the point of having it?

What have you got against having a good time at parties?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 25, 2022 5:08 am

I have nothing against having fun and going to parties, I just want the partiers to pay for it themselves.

2hotel9
February 24, 2022 7:45 am

When lies are all they have they just screech them louder. The global energy crisis is 100% created by the political left.

Rich Lentz(@usurbrain)
February 24, 2022 8:41 am

Presently the United States consumes 122 Quadrillion Btus [that is 122 with 15 zeros or 122,000,000,000,000,000 Btu] of energy per year. 110 of that is Fossil or not designated as renewable, e.g. Nuclear. Of the 10 Quadrillion obtained from “Renewable” only 1/3 comes from Wind/Solar. Also, about 1/3 of the so called renewable, e.g. biomass, ethanol, etc, emits CO2. Therefore to have Zero Carbon energy requires more than 30 times the present number of solar panels and wind turbines. [Source IEA]
.
It does not take a Genius, a HS Graduate can easily determine that to replace 7050 Million Tonnes (not barrels) of fossil energy used each year would take the equivalent of over 100 US WWII  “Manhattan” projects continuing for at least 50 years, and more like 100 years considering the replacement of the 10 – 20 year lifetime, five year MTBF Solar/Wing dream machines. And that is just for US, and the EU. It is obvious China will do little if anything. They are spending to much money on Coal and NG. Their Hydro is not CO2 Neutral.

The only real, effective, tactic is Nuclear Power. And even that will take 25-50 years to start noticing the decrease in CO2. At least the NPPS last 40, 60, 80 years. I have worked at Coal plants that were approaching 100 years.

Country              Mtoe    Renewable
China                 1436     6%
United States    1106     8%
Europe               982      11%
World                7050     14%

Mtoe = Million Tonnes Oil Equivalent

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rich Lentz
February 24, 2022 11:32 am

And even that will take 25-50 years to start noticing the decrease in CO2.

That is the claim that is commonly made. However, if CTM decides to publish my submission, I demonstrate that the claim is not valid.

Rich Lentz(@usurbrain)
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 24, 2022 12:50 pm

The US has a problem with the availability of Nuclear Engineers, Nuclear Architect Engineers and Nuclear Construction Contractors. The majority of the US companies designing NPPs (Westinghouse, GE, Combustion Engineering, Babcock & Wilcox, etc.) have been sold to overseas companies. What is left of those that stayed here in the us are a shell of what they once were.
My 50+ years of nuclear experience has given me the knowledge that when the individual Electric Utilities decided their knowledge of building Coal fired power plants would gave them the needed knowledge and experience to build Nuclear power plants. I worked and Consulted at four of these utilities that should have stuck with building newer generation Coal powered plants. [WPPSS, SMUD, TVA, ….) I am sure you are familiar with the results. The “Turn-Key” plants were built quicker, cheaper and had above average INPO and NRC reviews than those that had a high degree of Electric Utility involvement in the design and construction. I provided consulting service to one plant that had reliability problems, less than 60% capacity factor, and found that the had never performed manufacture “recommended” preventive maintenance on BOP, (Balance of Plant) equipment – “If it ain’t broke, don’t fixit”!
Worse, The NRC has transformed over the last 40 years [Since it’s “extraction” from the DOE] from “Assuring Safe Operation of the “Nuclear Steam Supply System” [NSSS] to an attitude of ZERO incidents, and applying NRC control over more and more of the BOP equipment. Who knows, next the NRC will have control over the Admin building. It is as if the NRC is Anti-Nuke, at least some of the NRC Commissioners are, especially those appointed by a democratic President. Look how long after Oil/gas refineries were Digitally controlled before the NRC finally decided they could be used at NPPs.

Even INPO transformed from it conception of “Assuring Safe Operation, sharing knowledge and experience and advocating Nuclear Power” to creating an environment where an INPO review that placed you in the Bottom Quartile was career ending.” I was a member of the first organizational meeting and continued supporting charter, etc. until my Manager decided this was the feather he needed in his cap.

It is because of all of the above that I feel that it will be years before the NRC even approves the new generation NPPs and that it is a Final review and Approval, and it will be about twenty years before the first new generation plant is on line.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rich Lentz
February 24, 2022 6:12 pm

I have a friend back in California who was a nuclear engineer for GE. About 1989, in his 20s, he went to law school to try to find employment because nobody wanted nuclear engineers.

Rich Lentz(@usurbrain)
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 25, 2022 6:23 am

Same for two of my coworkers. They Started on their law degree within months of TMI. One was hired by our company, He said “No specifics but over twice my previous salary.” I seriously considered it as there definitely was a need for Lawyers with knowledge of powerplants, they are virtually the same in operations, regulations and management. Only difference is the Furnace from the Reactor. After long consideration I felt I just did not have the personality to be a Lawyer, they did. They are still doing well and ready to retire.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rich Lentz
February 25, 2022 9:20 pm

When I was in high school I thought that I might want to be a lawyer. Then I thought better of it and decided I should get an honest job.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Rich Lentz
February 24, 2022 1:22 pm

I have worked at Coal plants that were approaching 100 years.

I’m curious; if a coal plant is say 60 years old, how many major refits has it undergone?

Back in the days of steam turbine warships, the powerplant was generally considered worn out after 20 years of active steaming. Warships spend most of their time underway at cruising speed, which is well under 50% maximum output.

Rich Lentz(@usurbrain)
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 24, 2022 3:33 pm

Part of that problem could be because of the maneuvering, rapid changes in demand for changes in speed and this causing a higher moisture content in the steam, The Turbine on the Nuclear Sub I was on was just 200+/- (forget) degrees above saturation. Rapid bell changes means pressure could drop drastically and cause loss of superheat. This creates water droplets in the steam which act just like sand to the Turbine. Think High Pressure water cutting used in fabrication today. The newer electrical powerplant steam generators have 2,000, 3,000 and even higher. pressures. The steam is as dry as the desert air and usually the only time they work on a turbine is when a blade fractures from an undiscovered flaw during construction.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rich Lentz
February 25, 2022 11:13 am

Therefore to have Zero Carbon energy requires more than 30 times the present number of solar panels and wind turbines. [Source IEA]

No, it would be a hell of a lot more than 30 times, because solar and wind turbines “capacity” to produce has to be divided by 3 (roughly) since they are lucky to be “producing” 30% of the time, and this still leaves the need for fossil fuels to back them up when the wind and the Sun don’t cooperate (not enough wind, too much wind, clouds) or are absent (night).

So more like 100 times, and you’re STILL not “carbon free” – all you’ve accomplished is massive environmental destruction, massive increases in energy costs, and obliteration of your economy.

H B
February 24, 2022 8:42 am

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-kerry-russia-ukraine-war-climate-change
the truly dumb have spoken or is it the end of the globalist WEF and NWO nightmare

markl
February 24, 2022 8:56 am

The Great Reset depends on the economic collapse of Capitalist countries that energy starvation would accomplish. The fact that the world is increasing rather than decreasing its’ use of fossil fuels should be an indication of the failure of that goal. No nation is going to sit back and watch other nations prosper at their expense.

AndyHce
Reply to  markl
February 24, 2022 10:07 am

that idea certainly is the opposite of current reality

rah
February 24, 2022 9:08 am

GERMAN ECONOMY MINISTER HABECK SAYS 50% OF OUR COAL COMES FROM RUSSIA
GERMAN ECONOMY MINISTER HABECK SAYS 55% OF OUR GAS FROM RUSSIA
GERMAN ECONOMY MINISTER HABECK SAYS 35% OF OUR OIL COMES FROM RUSSIA
Reuters – #Ukraine

Vuk
Reply to  rah
February 24, 2022 10:01 am

Hence, 90% of Germany’s economy problems will be coming from Russia.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Vuk
February 24, 2022 10:57 am

100% of Germany’s economic problems comes from Leftist politicians.

Vuk
February 24, 2022 10:02 am

Latest: Fracking coming back to the UK !

Clyde Spencer
February 24, 2022 10:34 am

it creates a false impression among the public that an energy sector free of fossil fuels is feasible.

That is exactly what propaganda is expected to do.

February 24, 2022 1:40 pm

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition and resides in Bengaluru, India where he is free to speak and write the truth.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
February 24, 2022 2:12 pm

And we are happy about that. 🙂

Alec Rawls
February 24, 2022 2:39 pm

They can’t say anything that might promote green-energy hesitancy. That’s a firing offense, just as doctors and nurses are being fired if they say anything that creates “vaccine hesitancy,” such as informing patients about the risks associated with the radically experimental vaccines, as the law requires them to do. Anyone who obeys the law gets fired. Anyone who tells the truth gets fired. What could go wrong?

Ken
February 24, 2022 7:38 pm

If “green energy” is claimed to be cheaper than coal or gas fired energy, why am I asked to pay extra for choosing green energy in my electricity plan?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ken
February 25, 2022 11:22 am

You would think the skyrocketing electric prices in places like Germany who have gone hog wild for bone-headed “renewable energy” schemes would get through even the thick skulls of the ‘climate’ deluded. But their skulls are impermeable to logic and reason.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
February 24, 2022 9:13 pm

The Age newspaper. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

%d bloggers like this: