As per my previous post, the situation in Ukraine should be a wake-up call to every sentient person to ditch the fantasies about wind and solar energy ASAP, and make sure that we have real energy that works. The wind/solar delusion, combined with active suppression of fossil fuels and even of nuclear, are basically financing Vladimir Putin’s war via increased oil and gas exports and higher prices. Meanwhile, the brave Ukrainian armed forces are certainly not running on the wind and sun; nor are the Russians who are attacking them.
In 2021, after finally achieving energy independence under President Trump, the U.S. immediately gave that up as the Biden Administration brought fresh rounds of fossil fuel suppression.
There are plenty of people in positions of power and/or influence in and over our government who are so taken with the religious fervor of “green” energy and “net zero” emissions that no amount of critical real world events can penetrate their mental armor. In the February 26 post I quoted U.S. “Climate Envoy” John Kerry begging the world to not let the Russian invasion distract from “focus” on rapid emissions reductions. Think of all the carbon emissions from burning buildings and tanks! And Kerry is just the tip of the iceberg among climate zanies in and around our government striving to push forward as rapidly as possible to dismantle our reliable and cost effective energy system, even as the Ukraine war dramatically demonstrates the dire necessity of energy security.
Last Thursday, February 24 — that would be the very day that Vladimir Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine — a gaggle of Biden’s lieutenants held a two-hour virtual affair they called their “Climate Roundtable.” Have you read about it? Actually the official title was “White House Climate Science Roundtable on Countering ‘Delayism’ and Communicating the Urgency of Climate Action.” The White House’s statement about the event can be found here, chock full of quotes from clueless fools. A few examples among many:
- Head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Deputy Assistant to the President Dr. Alondra Nelson: “This is deeply important to us, because, as you know, the Biden-Harris Administration’s agenda on climate change is historic. We rejoined the Paris Agreement on Day One, and we’ve been back at the table internationally — leading the world to increase our collective ambition, action, and innovation over the next decade. We’ve also set bold goals for the United States: to cut U.S. emissions in half by the end of the decade, to reach 100% clean electricity by 2035, and to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. . . . [T]his group knows better than most: that there have been for decades, and still are, forces arrayed against the cause of climate action — running the gamut from self-interest and short-term thinking, to deliberate disinformation campaigns that are as insidious as they are invidious.”
- White House OSTP Deputy Director for Climate and Environment Dr. Jane Lubchenco: “While there is broad awareness of the physical science aspects of this climate crisis, attention to the social sciences has lagged behind. And at the same time, powerful vested interests have skillfully manipulated the narrative to prevent or stall action. Our world is a coupled social and environmental system that must be understood and dealt with as an integrated system. Today, we bring this richer, more complete integration of physical and social sciences to the White House. . . . It’s time to understand and fight the delayism that has already cost us so dearly.”
- White House Senior Advisor Neera Tanden (you will recall her as having failed to get Senate confirmation to head OMB; so they have appointed her to this post that does not require confirmation): “It’s clear that a variety of special interests have had a vested interest in sowing doubt on climate change and feeding denialism and delay. We need to confront that reality. However, despite this organized campaign, a strong majority of the country wants climate action because they understand the consequences of inaction.”
- Andrea Dutton, Professor of Geoscience from the University of Wisconsin: “Sea-level rise threatens the safety and security of the United States. It’s as if we have an army ringing our coastlines, advancing farther each year than the previous year, taking more land as it goes. We would not tolerate that; yet we are allowing sea level to rise unabated.”
Well, Andrea, how about Russia, China, and maybe Iran and North Korea as the real threats out there? I suggest that we focus on those. Sea level is rising at the rate of maybe 6 – 8 inches per century, as it has for the last 10,000 or so years since the last ice age. Perhaps we could check back in on that in a hundred years or so to see if it really is a problem.
Meanwhile, back over in Europe, perhaps being much closer to the advancing Russian tanks has a way of focusing the mind. Germany, with its “Energiewende,” has long fancied itself the vanguard of the movement to get rid of fossil fuels. But after 12 years of this they have essentially no storage, battery or otherwise, to back up the wind and sun, and thus remain completely dependent on fossil fuels on calm nights and cloudy winter days. Oh, and they have also banned fracking for natural gas in their own territory. So it’s natural gas from Russia or nothing, just as Russia decides to advance its military westward.
The headline of the Bloomberg story today is “Germany may extend coal use to replace Russian gas.” But wait, you say — didn’t Germany just elect a new government consisting of the Social Democrats and the Greens? Surely, those people would not tolerate such a thing! Think again:
Economy Minister Robert Habeck, the former co-leader of the Green party, said coal plants could run for longer and even said he wasn’t “ideologically opposed” to extending the use of nuclear energy. Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced on Sunday plans to build two new liquefied natural gas terminals to expand Germany’s energy choices and reduce its reliance on Russia. The government wants to reach a point where it can “pick and choose which countries we want to build energy partnerships with,” Habeck said in an interview late on Sunday on ARD television. “Being able to choose also means, in case of doubt, that you can become independent from Russian gas, coal or oil.”