LA Times Claim that the World Can “quickly phase out all fossil fuels” is Completely Incompetent

LA Times Claim that the World Can “quickly phase out all fossil fuels” is Completely Incompetent   

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The LA Times published an Editorial claiming that the ozone layer thinning is recovering and that this outcome provides hope for climate alarmism schemes to be undertaken that can allegedly fix climate change concerns with the obvious solution being “to quickly phase out all fossil fuel.”

The Times editorial notes the following: 

“The gradual recovery of the ozone layer has been held up as proof that humanity can succeed with sustained, collective action against a shared threat to our environment. So should it also give us hope for the climate crisis? Not if we ignore its example and continue with the same plodding rate of action.”

However other climate scientists have concerns about what is actually happening with the Earth’s ozone layer as noted in the ozone science data discussion below.

“The Antarctic ozone hole usually starts opening during the Southern Hemisphere spring (in late September) and begins to develop during October, usually ending during November. But this has not been the case in the past few years. Data from the last three years show a different behavior during this time, the ozone hole has remained larger than usual throughout November and has only come to an end well into December.

The 2022 Antarctic ozone hole was again relatively large, and its closure took longer than usual, like 2020 and 2021 (shown below). This is a different behavior from what had been seen in the previous 40 years. No one is quite sure what is happening.”

Additional scientific concerns about the present state of the ozone atmospheric issues are noted as follows:

“In a 2018 study published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, researchers revealed that the ozone layer is not recovering between about 60°S and 60°N. Co-author Joanna Haigh, then from Imperial College London, said that,

“The potential for harm in lower latitudes may be worse than at the poles. The decreases in ozone are less than we saw at the poles before the Montreal Protocol was enacted, but UV radiation is more intense in these regions and more people live there.”

A recent UN report (January 2023) showed that 99% of ozone-destroying chemicals have been phased out, so why hasn’t the ozone recovery been stronger? It might be due to the long resident time ozone-destroying chemicals have in the atmosphere (about 100 years). But if that is the case, is that consistent with the very rapid onset of the ozone hole in the late 1970s? In addition, climate change may be altering the way air moves in the atmosphere, slowing the recovery.

Looking at the empirical evidence many people are looking at the recovery of the ozone layer through too hopeful an eye.”

The Times continues its premature “we have solved the earth’s ozone issues” hype and attempts to use this unproven claim to try and buttress a ridiculous claim that climate alarmist propaganda mandating the elimination of fossil fuels because of their greenhouse gas emissions is just around the corner. 

“The good news is we already know the solutions and have the technology needed to switch to renewable energy. But to succeed in curbing climate change, humanity will have to overcome powerful, entrenched fossil fuel interests and their beholden politicians. These industries have engaged in decades-long disinformation campaigns to delay climate action and try to cling to their profits for as long as possible.”

“It’s possible that decades from now we will be celebrating the near-elimination of fossil fuels and tracking the recovery of the atmosphere from our reckless dumping of greenhouse gases.

But hoping so isn’t enough. We have all the tools we need to fight this existential threat and we now know that taking decisive action can get results. We can’t wait a moment longer to act.”

The Times ozone claims are highly optimistic, rely upon measured scientific data that is both decades shorter in duration than required to prove it claims with that data containing recent measurement outcomes that are concerning. Their claim that the ozone issue is resolved ignores science data showing that other serious ozone issues and problems exist at lower latitudes as well as the fact that the claimed 99% reduction in ozone-destroying chemicals seems inconsistent with the slow progress seen to date as demonstrated by the measured science data.

After overstating and underestimating the ozone issue science complexity, resolution timeframe and uncertainty issues (while providing no scientific data, etc.) the Times then leaps to proclaim that the same “success” can be achieved in the near elimination of fossil fuels in the future as mandated by climate alarmism advocates.    

The year 2022 BP Statistical Review of World Energy provides significant energy and emissions data that allow for a reasoned and intelligent assessment of the critical importance of the economic and beneficial use of fossil fuel energy with the key highlight of the report noting “BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2022 reveals that the growing shortages and increasing prices highlight the continuing importance of energy ’security’ and ‘affordability’ alongside ‘lower carbon’ when addressing the energy trilemma.”

The report also notes that the primary energy use yearly incremental growth in year 2021 was the largest amount in history, with emerging economies accounting for most of the increases.

Global primary incremental energy demand grew by a record 5.52% in 2021 over the depressed level of the year 2020 pandemic year while global CO2 emissions climbed by 5.6%. Both energy and carbon emission growth increases were driven by the rebound in global wide economic growth from the COVID year 2022 pandemic.

Of the 5.52% incremental energy growth of year 2021 global energy consumption, 83.4% was provided by increased fossil fuel use and only 16.4% from increased renewable energy use. 

Global year 2021 total primary energy use was met with 82.3% of fossil fuel use and only 6.7% of renewable energy use with large hydro and nuclear providing the remaining energy.

This energy use data clearly shows that the LA Times idiotic claim that the world can “quickly phase out all fossil fuels” is completely preposterous. After decades of global wide costly mandates to use unreliable renewable energy these energy resources provided a pathetic 6.7% of total global energy use in year 2021.

The world’s developing nations (non-OECD) accounted for 61.37% of all global energy use with the developed nations (OECD) accounting for only 38.62% of global energy use.

The developing nations (led by China and India) renewable energy use accounted for only 5.1% of their year 2021 total global energy consumption while the developed nations used renewable energy for 9.2% of their total energy use needs.

Globally, trillions of dollars have been mandated by the developed nations governments over the last two decades to force the use of unreliable renewable energy that has led to the global energy security and affordability chaos that have occurred in the last two years with this debacle concealed and unaddressed by the LA Times.

The world’s developing nations accounted for 66.7% of total year 2021 CO2 emissions while the developed nations accounted for only 33.3% of total CO2 emissions.

The developed nations CO2 emissions will continue to become less and less significant in the future as the developing nations proceed with increased use of more coal, oil, and natural gas which year 2022 global energy and emissions data will clearly show.    

The peak CO2 emissions year for the developed nations was 2005 with these nations total emissions now reduced by over 2.4 billion metric tons per year through year 2021 from 2005 levels. 

During this same period the CO2 emissions by the world’s developing nations have grown by 8.1 billion metric tons per year causing global CO2 emissions to increase by over 5.7 billion metric tons per year through year 2021.

The developed nations governments expended trillions of dollars to achieve mandated increases in the use of unreliable renewable energy. These mandates significantly increased these nations energy costs and jeopardized their energy security with their CO2 emissions reductions being globally irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the developing nations significantly increased their use of all fossil fuels and significantly increased their total energy use with these nations now completely dominating both global energy use and emissions outcomes. Their CO2 emissions skyrocketed upward by over 8 billion metric tons per year between 2005 and 2021.       

This global CO2 emissions growth debacle noted above is concealed and unaddressed by the LA Times.

The LA Times conceals the global wide energy security and affordability failures of governments that incompetently mandated use of unreliable renewable energy.

The LA Times conceals the failures of global government emissions reductions schemes that have cost trillions of dollars and resulted in over 8 billion metric tons of increased global emissions by the world’s developing nations with this outcome reflecting the inept futility of such idiotic emissions reduction government mandated schemes.

The LA Times claim that the world’s “solution to avert catastrophic warming” is to “quickly phase out all fossil fuels” is nothing but climate science and global energy use policy incompetence. 

5 23 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
February 4, 2023 10:09 am

Was there an “Ozone Hole” over Antarctica 200 years ago?

Reply to  Steve Case
February 4, 2023 10:16 am

Does a bear shit in the woods?

John Shewchuk
Reply to  Scissor
February 4, 2023 10:45 am

Is that Polar, Brown, or Grizzly bears?

Mark Luhman
Reply to  John Shewchuk
February 4, 2023 7:38 pm

Simple Polar Bears do not live in woods. So it has to be Grizzly or more proper Brown Bears.

Reply to  Scissor
February 5, 2023 6:47 pm

LA Times is a laxative. So. yes.

Reply to  Steve Case
February 4, 2023 12:39 pm

I’ve been thinking that for years
After all I don’t think ozone is needed there, is it ?
Someone can tell me if I’m wrong

Russell Cook
Reply to  MikeSexton
February 4, 2023 5:00 pm

I’ve been wondering about two other bits, how the propellants in my spray paint cans in North America had a mind of their own to float all the way down to Antarctica to widen the hole in the 1980s, and now why it took 35 years for the ban on CFCs to ‘heal the hole’ when that should have taken just a decade or less to accomplish.

Reply to  MikeSexton
February 4, 2023 5:14 pm

what does ‘needed’ mean? Does the plant ‘need’ anything? I suspect the plant just is. Anything beyond that is a projection by humans.

Devils Tower
February 4, 2023 10:19 am

Another green scam on the books, EU to save Ukrane with green light bulbs…

Tom Halla
February 4, 2023 10:32 am

Yes, we will replace fossil fuels with pixie dust and unicorn farts. Or was that wind and solar? As if there is a difference?

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 4, 2023 12:14 pm

You get the best mileage using pixie dust, although I’m not sure what fuel flying carpets take.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Scissor
February 4, 2023 8:42 pm

Dust bunnies on a treadmill.

February 4, 2023 10:36 am

LA Times Claim that the World Can “quickly phase out all fossil fuels” is Completely IRRATIONAL

There fixed it for you.  

Most of it isn’t even a “fossil Fuel” in the first place thus ignorant as well for all those warmist/alarmists who think with their emotions hence the reason for their chronic flow of illogic and ignorance which is easy to see and obvious and that is really sad………..

Peta of Newark
February 4, 2023 10:38 am

The Ozone Hole is total garbage.
On top of that (would that put you somewhere near Saturn) the LA Times would be well advised to find out more on what this stuff is,what it’s used for and where it is used
(you could NOT make it up)

1,3 Dichloropropene

quote from the wiki
1,3-Dichloropropene, sold under diverse trade names, is an organochlorine compound. It is colorless liquid with a sweet smell. It dissolves in water and evaporates easily. It is used mainly in farming as a pesticide, specifically as a preplant fumigant and nematicide. It is widely used in the US and other countries, but is banned in 34 countries,[4] including the European Union.

Rud Istvan
February 4, 2023 10:59 am

So just a few little fact problems with the LA Times piece:

  1. The ozone hole isn’t healing despite the Montreal Protocol.
  2. CO2 rises despite the Paris Accord.
  3. There is NO substitute for most diesel and all jet fuel applications.

But then, the LA Times is published in LA. And LA is in California, the land of nuts and fruits. Where CPUC mandated grid storage in MW rather than MWh. Where population grew by 38% since 1980 while water storage grew zero. Where very strict gun control still resulted in 5 mass shootings so far in 2023.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 4, 2023 12:50 pm

Despite the claims by learned scientists, I was never convinced that humans wear causing the ozone hole. Partly because the time period of measurement was too short & partly because nobody had actually proven that there was no ozone hole before humans started to use CFCs. Basically, I see it as a practice for the CO2 causes climate change scam.

The fact that CFCs have dropped to zero, while the ozone hole is still there, pretty much proves my suspicion.

Reply to  Hivemind
February 4, 2023 1:58 pm

“CFCs have dropped to zero” needs to be checked. I was under the impression that China and some others carried on making, using, and leaking freon.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  martinc19
February 4, 2023 7:41 pm

The realty is freon make no difference anyway. It was all a scam to begin with by blame humans first crowd.

Don Perry
February 4, 2023 11:22 am

A quick look at Live Flight Tracker, showing aircraft currently in the air begs an answer to the question, ‘How ya gonna fly them thar aeroplanes without fuel?”.

Reply to  Don Perry
February 4, 2023 4:59 pm

A quick look at the US power grids statistics for today–very cold in the Northeast–shows that we are still burning OIL for electricity. At one point today, oil fired power generation was contributing 31% of the ISO-NE grid’s power, while wind and solar were contributing about 5%. Natural gas, nuclear, imports, hydro and coal made up the balance. If you can’t meet the demand on cold days and hot days, then you can’t get to net zero.

February 4, 2023 11:50 am

These people have a mental problem .They are absolutely delusional .
They should try living ,starting today not using any fossil fuel.
Then not using any product or food that has used fossil fuel during manufacture or transport to the supermarket .
Then not living in a house that has used any fossil furled energy to mll the timber or make the bricks or roof tiles .
On a sheep farm we have a drafting race and the way these idiots are carrying on that might be the solution .
All those against fossil fuel can all be voluntary drafted off to go and live in poverty in an enclave on the coast .
The rest of us will carry on as there is no climate crisis .
There are many problems in the world that need solving which is what we should be concentrating on ,instead of the false demon CO2.

John in Oz
Reply to  Graham
February 4, 2023 5:41 pm

My thoughts perzactly (sic)

There is a blinkered view that the removal of fossil fuels is only about energy production.

There is never a solution offered on how to replace all of the other products that are based on the same fossil fuels.

Is this deliberate so that the sheeple do not know what they are going to miss should oil/gas/coal extraction be banned?

Reply to  Graham
February 4, 2023 6:28 pm

I’d like to see them try to find one item in a hospital that doesn’t involve fossil fuels in its production. Good luck making an IV line without petroleum products, much less machines that go ping.

Last edited 3 months ago by QODTMWTD
B Zipperer
Reply to  QODTMWTD
February 4, 2023 8:53 pm

Great point.
Lol. I could only think of two things, both of which drive home your point that essentially ALL aspects of a modern society [not just in a hospital ] are fossil fuel dependent.
Oh, the 2 were daylight streaming in from your window and dust.
Everything else was made with or by using FF, or got there using them.

btw Hanna Holmes’ book “Dust” was a fun, informative read.

February 4, 2023 12:00 pm

La La Times is a Ministry Of Climate Truth organ so I don’t read it…is it still printed on dead tree material?

Reply to  antigtiff
February 6, 2023 5:48 am

Yes, using oil-based inks.

Joseph Zorzin
February 4, 2023 12:05 pm

“…humanity will have to overcome powerful, entrenched fossil fuel interests and their beholden politicians. These industries have engaged in decades-long disinformation campaigns to delay climate action and try to cling to their profits for as long as possible”

Now to fix that.

“humanity will have to overcome powerful, entrenched wind and solar industry interests and their beholden politicians. These industries have engaged in decades-long disinformation campaigns to promote climate action and try to cling to their profits and gravy train careers for as long as possible”

February 4, 2023 12:11 pm

You first Times! All EVs for everything, including delivery of all materials and parts for the presses. Heat and all power from only green sources and nucs not allowed.

Shut up or put up!

Reply to  rah
February 4, 2023 12:40 pm

They won’t

Reply to  MikeSexton
February 6, 2023 5:49 am

Oh good, so we can keep lampooning them.

Scarecrow Repair
February 4, 2023 12:52 pm

I has questions: when did it become feasible for science to detect the ozone hole? When did scientists start measuring the ozone hole? How soon after was it detected?

In other words, was it only a problem because someone thought it unusual but had no way of telling if it had ever occurred before or was in fact normal?

ETA I see I should have reloaded comments before posting. Half of you has the same questions 🙂

Last edited 3 months ago by Scarecrow Repair
February 4, 2023 1:11 pm

YOU and all your employees first!

Only EVs for everyone and everything connected to the paper in any way. That includes deliveries of EVERYTHING to the paper, including the food for the cafeteria, none of which can have been produced, processed, or transported with anything using fossil fuels. And includes all deliveries made by the Paper.

In fact that includes everything used by the paper. Paper, parts, pens, EVERYTHING must have been produced without using fossil fuels.

And no flying anywhere an electric powered aircraft or airship cannot take you.

All heat and energy must come from “green” renewable sources and that includes not using nuclear power since your paper has a long history of fear mongering concerning nuc plants.

Now get with it Times. You say it can be done quickly and easily, so get with it! Put up or shut up!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  rah
February 4, 2023 8:51 pm

It is like the people cheering the Biden administration decision to stop the Pebble Mine in Alaska because it is a major salmon source. It hasn’t occurred to them that without fossil fuels to transport the salmon, they will have to use EVs to get the salmon to markets. But, without abundant copper, there will be supply issues, and EVs won’t be able to deliver the salmon either.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  rah
February 5, 2023 3:43 pm

Sorry, but “electric powered aircraft” and “renewable” heat and energy don’t cut it either. All of those things are 100% dependent on fossil fuels for their existence.

Without fossil fuels you have nothing made of metal, nothing made of plastic, and no modern conveniences of any sort.

Until the LAT is chipping their words in slabs of stone with stone tools and their reporters are walking everywhere, they’re just a bunch of deluded hypocrites.

February 4, 2023 1:19 pm

The molecules that make up the banned CFCs are among the most dense of common gases. If a leak of them occurs in a mechanical room an immediate exit must be made because these heavy gases don’t disperse into the surrounding atmosphere, they collect in low spots. The normal explanation for why these gases soar up into the higher reaches of the atmosphere is that there is a “mixing effect” that causes it.
A. If there is a “mixing effect” the CFCs would be distributed equally through the earth’s atmosphere, not concentrated in a thin layer where ozone is located. Restricting the use of CFCs is akin to putting locks on the doors of bowling alleys, not to prevent the entry of thieves but instead to eliminate the bowling balls floating away into space.
B. The evil atom in the refrigeration molecule is chlorine. These molecules are said to be broken up into their constituent atoms by ultra-violet rays, releasing the chlorine atoms to mate with the ozone atoms and destroy the ozone layer, according to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. If this is the case, what of the trillions of chlorine atoms that circulate in the atmosphere naturally and the others that are released by chlorine treatment of drinking water and swimming pools?

Reply to  nailheadtom
February 4, 2023 4:25 pm

As I’ve always said, before you go about refuting someone’s argument, you should try to understand it. Otherwise you end up doing what you have done here, beating the heck out of multiple straw men.

First off, nobody ever claimed that CFCs would concentrate in the stratosphere.
Secondly the claim was that it was the extreme stability of the CFC molecule that allowed the chlorine atom to reach the stratosphere. Other molecules reacted with other things which allowed them to form compounds that were easily washed out of the atmosphere long before they could reach the stratosphere. It was only after reaching the stratosphere that UV was strong enough to break down the CFC molecule and release the chlorine atom. Allegedly you did not need a lot of chlorine atoms in order to break down a lot of ozone. The reason for this is because ozone, being three atoms of oxygen is an inherently unstable molecule and the chlorine would act as a catalyst to break ozone down. This action would continue until the chlorine atom drifted out of the stratosphere.

There are many problems with this model.
1) Nobody ever bothered to measure whether CFC atoms were actually reaching the stratosphere, and if so, at what volumes.
2) Nobody actually measured the ability of UV to fully free chlorine atoms from CFC molecules.
3) The catalytic effect of chlorine on ozone was never measured, it was only modeled by models that were never validated.
4) Nobody tried to measure the residence time of a chlorine atom in the stratosphere.
5) Nobody had any evidence that the ozone layer was actually thinning, it was just assumed that it must be, since that’s what the models showed.

There are sufficient problems with the claims of CFCs destroying the ozone layer, that you don’t have to invent bogus arguments based on bad science and refuting claims that were never made.

Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2023 4:50 pm

the claim was that it was the extreme stability of the CFC molecule that allowed the chlorine atom to reach the stratosphere.

Yes, that was the claim. The problem is that the CFC molecule is much heavier than any of the other common atmospheric gases. The Molina-Rowlands model ignores gravity.

Reply to  nailheadtom
February 4, 2023 6:36 pm

Being heavy does not prevent the molecule from being distributed through the atmosphere, including up to the stratosphere.

Gary Pearse
February 4, 2023 1:56 pm

“A recent UN report (January 2023) showed that 99% of ozone-destroying chemicals have been phased out, so why hasn’t the ozone recovery been stronger? It might be due to the long resident time ozone-destroying chemicals have in the atmosphere (about 100 years).”

Why not the simplest implication: hydrofluorocarbons are NOT the cause of the ozone hole?! If it were, there would be no explanation for it fluctuating so much in size as can be seen in NASA’S imagery.

Shows little change1989 and 2010 after 20yrs. And then we had the all time giant hole of 2020.

February 4, 2023 1:58 pm

Efforts to control the size of the Ozone Hole have proved to be as useless as the efforts to control the Climate by attacking CO2 & ‘fossil’ fuels, the imagined causes of “Climate Change”

David Wojick
February 4, 2023 2:01 pm

There is a story here. The Montreal Protocol was pushed through based on a big, for its time, “science” report. Those folks then created the IPCC, especially RobertWatson. But killing fire is harder than killing CFCs.

February 4, 2023 2:24 pm

The Green movement isn’t an ecological or environmental group so much as it a secular religion. It’s all based on faith just like any other religion. So they don’t have to make sense or be logically consistent as long as it fits the gospel “CO2 is bad”.

February 4, 2023 2:37 pm

The world has been hyping “renewable energy” for decades and it hasn’t even replaced the growth in fossil fuel use much less come close to displacing it. It’s like the “EV revolution” where 1%+ of new car sales are EVs yet automobile numbers are growing at 5%.

Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
February 4, 2023 5:06 pm

Sine the major part of the world isn’t even pretending to care, any statistics of FF replacement should be based on only those countries that have drunk the kool-aid. How effective have the programs been there?

February 4, 2023 2:46 pm

The world primary energy is about 78% from fossil fuels for electricity, transportation, building heating, process and industrial plants,

Fossil materials are EMBEDDED in tens of thousands of ordinary products bought in stores, such as Home Depot and WalMart.

How in hell can all that be transitioned to wind and solar in just a few years?

The Nutty-Zero wackos, who never analyzed, designed, or operated any energy systems, and who claim the transition can be done in a few years, should be locked up for disturbing the peace.

Wind and Solar are Molly-Coddled up to Their Armpits
Grossly Excessive Financial Incentives: About 45 to 50% of the “wind, all-in LCOE” (levelized cost of energy) of wind turbine projects consists of various financial in incentives. I have the 20-y spreadsheets.
If no financial incentives were available, Owners would have to sell their electricity at almost 2 times the price, c/kWh, they now receive, which would be very bad PR for wind.
Wind Output is Variable Almost 100% of the Time: I looked at the hour-to-hour wind output in New England (ISO-NE website) for an entire year, 8766 hours.
I was bleary eyed.
I found there ALWAYS was some wind output. It was NEVER zero.
Wind output is variable almost 100% of the time 
Counteracting Variable Wind Output: What makes wind a grid disturber, or very expensive, or very uneconomical (take your pick) is the VARIABLE output, because OTHER generators (likely gas-fired power plants) HAVE to counteract the output variations, UP TO NEAR ZERO wind output, 24/7/365, year after year.
By exporting excess electricity, such as to Quebec, via not-yet-existing HV DC lines, NE generators will do less counteracting, but Quebec generators will do more counteracting; there is no free lunch in the real engineering world. 
Cost of Counteracting Variable Wind Output: The counteracting costs imposed on the other generators will be an addition to the “all-in LCOE” of the other generators. 
Depending on grid conditions/topology, that cost addition is:
Less than 5% at up to 5% annual wind penetration,
About 5% at about 10% wind penetration,
About 10% at 15% wind penetration, etc.
That cost addition becomes very large at high levels of wind penetration, because more and more of the other generators will be operating less economically, due to:
1) Ramping up/down, at about 75% of rated output, to counteract, on a minute-by-minute basis, the variable wind outputs; more Btu/kWh, more c/kWh 
2) Being on hot, synchronous standby, and cold standby; more Btu/kWh, more c/kWh 
3) Having much more fuel-guzzling cold start and stops; more Btu/kWh, more c/kWh 
4) Having much more wear and tear, more Btu/kWh, more c/kWh.
5) Producing less, but more expensive electricity, due to inefficiently operating, at a lesser capacity factor, with wind on the grid
NOTE: The more wind and solar on the grid, the larger the electricity quantities that need to be counteracted, and the greater the cost of the counteracting services, as proven in Germany and Ireland.
Ignoring the Money and Environmental Impacts?  The public not looking at the wind project spreadsheets and not being made aware of wind’s lifetime adverse environmental consequences, is exactly what “rich folks with tax-shelters and their protectors” want.
Over the decades, those folks have set up nationwide PR structures to lie and cheat every-which-way to get their projects approved, built and paid for in Europe and the US.
In that manner, wind is ARTIFICIALLY made to LOOK economically and socially palatable to the kept-ignorant/deluded/brainwashed ratepayers and taxpayers.
The PR ideal is to make “skunk-wind” perceived as a “low-maintenance, perfumed beauty at a garden party”.
To sum up, wind gets:
1) Various federal and state financial incentives,
2) Plus, free electric grid expansion/augmentation,
3) Plus, free backup/standby power plant services
4) Plus, free grid management services
5) Plus, free hazardous waste disposal during project life, and at end of life,
6) Plus, free legalized killing of bats and birds, including bald eagles, and of whales,
7) Plus, free legalized ruining of the fishing industry,
8) Plus, free sickening of people and animals with infrasound, which is felt, but not heard,
9) Plus, free visual blight all over the place
There would be no wind, solar and battery systems without the huge, politics-inspired, financial incentives.
Thank heavens, ISO-NE has, till now, adequate backup/standby plants, plus adequate natural gas and fuel oil storage capacity near power plants, to INSTANTLY COUNTERACT the ups and downs and absences of wind and solar, 24/7/365, year after year. 

February 4, 2023 3:54 pm

“Globally, trillions of dollars have been mandated by the developed nations governments over the last two decades to force the use of unreliable renewable energy that has led to the global energy security and affordability chaos that have occurred in the last two years with this debacle concealed and unaddressed by the LA Times.

The world’s developing nations (non-OECD) accounted for 61.37% of all global energy use with the developed nations (OECD) accounting for only 38.62% of global energy use.”

Consider the above quotes from the commentary on the LA Times article. I’m surprised that the total energy use of the developing countries is 61.73% of all global energy use. I didn’t think it would be that much. However, if that figure is true, one should ask,’How much of that energy that is used in developing countries, provides the cheap products for the residents of the developed countries, including cheap solar panels, windmills, Lithium-Ion batteries, and thousands of other products that would be much more expensive if they were manufactured in the developed countries?’

Also, the trillions of dollars that have been mandated by developed-nation governments, to ‘encourage’ the use of renewable energy, is probably completely offset by the trillions of dollars saved in the developed countries, by importing cheap products from the developing nations.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Vincent
February 5, 2023 4:42 pm

No it’s not offset by any stretch of the imagination. Artificially making energy more expensive in the pursuit of non-solutions to imaginary problems is massively expensive, and is the foundation of the current inflation.

Chris Hanley
February 4, 2023 3:59 pm

Check out the Los Angeles Times editorial board not one has the faintest notion of the effect that eliminating fossil fuels would have on life in Los Angeles of all places let alone the US if it were possible — which it isn’t — the editorial writer focusing on climate change is an arts graduate (anthropology).

Last edited 3 months ago by Chris Hanley
Chris Hanley
February 4, 2023 4:17 pm
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 5, 2023 4:44 pm

Nope I see tons of metals and plastics that wouldn’t exist without using fossil fuels.

February 4, 2023 6:24 pm

“The gradual recovery of the ozone layer has been held up as proof that humanity can succeed with sustained, collective action….

First off, refrigerants used in refrigerators could have been propane or butane…but DuPont convinced governments that their non-flammable halocarbons would be much safer (also much more profitable for DuPont).
Secondly it is now clear that the ozone hole grows and shrinks over the poles depending on 24 hour sunlight quite a bit from year to year. Maybe the Montreal Protocol was overboard….

Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 5, 2023 10:06 am

“… refrigerants used in refrigerators could have been propane or butane…but DuPont convinced governments that their non-flammable halocarbons would be much safer…”

Yes, true to a point, but we had the Grenfell fire which was apparently started by a ‘fridge whose propane coolant leaked and then caught fire. Maybe the evil DuPont had a point.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 5, 2023 4:45 pm

No maybe about it.

Clyde Spencer
February 4, 2023 8:40 pm

I think the claim that the so-called ozone hole is healing is wishful thinking. It is clear that seasonal weather plays an important role in the development of the Antarctic circumpolar vortex, which is responsible for preventing tropical ozone from replacing depleted ozone in the interior.

A non-trivial computer model I built years ago, using TOMS data for 45 deg south latitude, suggested that ozone was declining in the Winter, when the sun was low and the rays had a longer slant range than during the Summer. However, during Summer, when the sun was highest and the slant range was at a minimum, the levels came back to the historically high values — when plants and animals were most in need of protection. Surely the plants and animals in the Southern Hemisphere evolved to tolerate the high Summer UV fluxes. Therefore, the Winter values should not be much of a concern.

February 4, 2023 10:42 pm

The Ozone hole is failing to close 9Nov21

Checkout NASA’s ozone watch page – no sign of closing – Flatlining at this point in time. Leading to diversionary articles by the “great and the good”.

February 5, 2023 5:09 am

Tell the numpties at the LA Times that they will have to give up using plastic. They can try it for a week.
We can watch. With popcorn.

Andy Pattullo
February 5, 2023 9:53 am

LA Times is not wrong that we can quickly phase out fossil fuels. They are just not telling the whole story about how this is the beginning of a global Jim Jones death cult. Pass the Kool-aid.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
February 5, 2023 4:47 pm

Yes, to put it simply we can discontinue fossil fuel use any time we’re willing to return to the Stone Age.

Last edited 3 months ago by AGW is Not Science
February 5, 2023 6:04 pm

They are doing a good job of phasing out of the MSM.

February 5, 2023 6:46 pm

LA “Slimes” is a much better name. Incompetent, poor writing ability (amazing for supposed English majors), and ignorant folks shouldn’t be authoring articles at all. I’m hoping the “Slimes” readership is declining like most other “News”papers.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights