By Steve Goreham
“There is no evidence that UN COP meetings and more than $10 trillion spent on renewables over the last 30 years have affected the climate. The average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which is blamed for global warming, has been rising over the last 50 years without any change to the trend.”
World leaders are in turmoil. For 30 years, the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and International Energy Agency, among business and political leaders called for a shift from hydrocarbon fuels to renewable energy. Thousands of laws were enacted to try to force a net zero energy transition. But it’s now clear that green energy is unable to meet the needs of growing developing nations or support the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution in advanced nations.
Since the founding of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, the UN has led efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to try to fight human-caused global warming. Delegates from more than 180 nations meet at the annual UN Conference of the Parties (COP) to discuss climate action, with recent COP attendance exceeding 50,000 attendees.
But there is no evidence that UN COP meetings and more than $10 trillion spent on renewables over the last 30 years have affected the climate. The average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which is blamed for global warming, has been rising over the last 50 years without any change to the trend.
The World Economic Forum (WEF), a forum of business leaders established in 1971, states: “business should not only create economic value but also serve society and the planet.” At the WEF Sustainable Development Impact Summit in 2020, more than 4,500 leaders called for a “Great Reset for Sustainable Development,” committing to reach Net Zero by 2050 or sooner.
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) was established in 2004 by the UN as a framework to evaluate a company beyond traditional financial metrics. Of high importance in ESG is a firm’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support policies to fight climate change.
But net zero policies cannot support the energy needs of growing developing nations. Also, the rise of artificial intelligence drives a huge need for electrical power in advanced nations that cannot be supplied by intermittent green energy sources. Businesses and political leaders now realize that Net Zero and ESG are not the keys to the future.
Today, more than 6,500 coal-fired power plants operate with more than 1,000 new plants in planning or under construction. Coal plants provided 34% of world electricity in 2024, the leading source. Leaders call for an end to coal-fired power, but coal consumption grew to an all-time high in 2024. Still, 700 million people still do not have access to electricity and about two billion suffer blackouts or brownouts every other day.
In 2021, Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), said, ”If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas, and coal from now—from this year.” But last year the IEA World Energy Outlook predicted that oil demand would continue to increase to 2050 and that gas consumption would increase 30% by 2050 in their “current policies scenario.”
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently pointed out that each of the billion people in the developed world uses about 13 barrels of oil per year, while a developing nation resident uses only about three barrels per year. The US and Europe have one or two vehicles per person compared to less than one vehicle for every ten people in Africa or India. Residents of wealthy nations use ten times the plastic used by people in developing countries. Developing countries will propel the demand for hydrocarbon fuels to better their standards of living.
The AI revolution now drives the need for electric power in wealthy nations. The US and China are competing for AI dominance and Europe wants to join the battle. Data center construction is skyrocketing to support AI. Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft invested over $380 billion last year on AI infrastructure, a total larger than the gross domestic product of more than 140 nations.
Larry Fink, co-chair of the WEC and CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment fund, said at the WEC conference last month, “You cannot rely solely on intermittent sources like wind and solar. You need dispatchable power because these data centers cannot simply turn on and off.” AI data centers are being powered by natural gas and in some cases nuclear power.
Leading firms pledged to become Net Zero, but the AI revolution is shattering those plans. In 2020, Google announced a goal to operate on carbon-free energy by 2030. But in 2024 Google admitted their emissions rose 48% over the last four years due to AI-driven services.
In 2020, petroleum company BP launched a $200 million “environmentally friendly” public relations campaign. The firm rebranded itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” pledging to reduce oil and gas production 40% by 2030 and to boost investments in renewable energy. Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron all announced plans to invest in renewables or green technologies such as carbon capture and storage.
But oil and gas firms found that renewables couldn’t make money, even with government subsidies. Returns on renewable projects were about six percent while oil and gas project returns were over ten percent. BP and Shell scaled back their renewable goals and investments in 2025.
In 2020, Larry Fink declared that he intended to use the trillions of US dollars managed by BlackRock to address global warming. Almost every major financial institution pledged to reduce emissions. ESG became a defining feature of Wall Street investing. More than 100 companies joined Climate Action 100+ to focus on reducing emissions globally. The UN-convened Net Zero Banking Alliance was established in 2021 and quickly grew to 140 financial institutions.
The Great Reversal
But a conservative backlash attacked financial industry support for ESG and climate action. Republican legislatures in the US introduced more than 100 bills to penalize financial companies that supported ESG practices. Republican state treasurers withdrew money from BlackRock.
As a result, climate and ESG efforts in the financial industry have collapsed. After Donald Trump’s re-election in November 2024, almost every US financial institution pulled out of the Net Zero Banking Alliance, causing the group to fold. Dozens of firms left Climate Action 100+. European firms also pulled back from climate commitments.
The shutdown of US climate policies during President Trump’s second term have devastated the global climate movement. The US has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement and the UNFCCC and cut funding for climate organizations. A climate tax on shipping proposed by the International Maritime Organization was halted by US and China opposition. The ending of US subsidies for wind, solar, and electric vehicles heavily impacted those industries.
Microsoft founder and climate activist Bill Gates authored the book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster in 2021. But last fall he changed his position. In a memo to COP30, he criticized the climate community for their “doomsday outlook” and focusing too much on “near-term emissions goals,” stating that “our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries.”
In addition to US Republican opposition, other political parties withdrew support from Net Zero. Reform UK, which is leading in UK polls, coined the phrase “Net Stupid Zero.” Alternative für Deutschland, the number two party in Germany, calls wind turbines “windmills of shame.” Both the National and the Liberal parties in Australia scrapped their support for Net Zero last fall, concerned with green energy costs.
Conclusion
World leaders are pulling back from climate hysteria and demands for net zero energy. It’s time to return to sensible energy policy and to adapt to climate change, as humanity has done for all of history.
———
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy, and author of four books, including Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.
Editor’s Appendix: Goreham Posts at MasterResource
A mark of a true scholar is how his or her writings and conclusions stand the test of time. Steve Goreham’s writings for MasterResource for more than a decade read well today. His books and illustrations on climate/energy issues are excellent. And with his editorials in the Wall Street Journal (see here, here, and here) and other leading publications, this ‘talented amateur’ is running circles around leading academics on the same issues.
Rejecting Climatism: Trump Withdraws from UNFCCC and 66 International Organizations (January 14, 2026)
Environmental Groups Urge Congress to Ban Data Centers (December 17, 2025)
A Nuclear Resurgence, But Major Obstacles Remain (November 20, 2025)
Steeper Road for Zero-Emissions Vehicles (July 23, 2025)
Net Zero’ Is Collapsing in U.S. States (June 16, 2025)
Time to Defund Climate Models? (April 29, 2025)
US Military Exits Climate Change After Wasteful Decade (April 2, 2025)
Trump Truth Bombs ‘Green’ Energy (Five EOs) (January 27, 2025)
Wind and Solar Are Fragile (December 3, 2024)
Scientists Haven’t ‘Saved’ the Ozone Layer (November 13, 2024)
No Gov. Inslee, Repeal of Washington State’s Climate Law Won’t Hurt the Climate (July 31, 2024)
New US-EU Methane Rules Won’t Affect Temperatures (July 9, 2024)
Winter Without Your Gasoline Car? (May 15, 2024)
Exploding Energy Prices in California (March 12, 2024)
Electric Power vs. Green Goals (February 27, 2024)
California’s Electric Truck Mandate: 19 States Sue (November 21, 2023)
Green Hydrogen Needs Vast Subsidies (October 19, 2023)
Europe: AI Development or Net Zero? (September 10, 2023)
Carbon Language in Global Error (September 5, 2023)
“Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure” (August 22, 2023)
Europe’s Crisis: Blame Green Energy Policy (June 28, 2023)
Surging New England Energy Prices: No Surprise (May 30, 2023)
The Practical Impossibility of Large-Scale Carbon Capture and Storage (May 2, 2023)
Green Energy: Greatest Wealth Transfer to the Rich in History (February 21, 2023)
New England Curtails amid World Natural Gas Boom (April 9, 2019)
‘Sustainable’ Fuels Unlikely to Replace Hydrocarbons for Air Travel (January 2, 2019)
100 Percent Renewables—Poor Policy for Ratepayers (October 29, 2018)
Protesters Aren’t Stopping US Pipeline Network Growth (June 27, 2018)
The Myth of Dangerous Acid Rain (in light of Hawaii’s Kilauea volcano) (May 23, 2018)
Electrification’: The Road to Higher Energy Prices (January 3, 2018)
Tax Bill Attacked for Loss of Electric Car Subsidy—But Most Americans Don’t Want Electric Cars (November 20, 2017)
Are US Vehicle-Mileage Standards Obsolete? (November 8, 2017)
Shale Shock: A New, Better Energy World (September 30, 2015)
Stressing the Grid: From Interventionism to Blackouts (April 24, 2014)
Thankfully Wrong: World Agriculture Booms in Face of Dire Predictions (November 29, 2013)
Don’t Divest, Educate–An Open Letter to American Universities (June 11, 2013)
Revisiting Climategate as Climatism Falters (June 6, 2013)
Climategate’s Fifth Anniversary: Grubered Science (revisiting a controversy) (November 19, 2011)
and the foundation for all this nonsense, the endangerment finding, is being withdrawn this week – the house of cards is crumbling
I asked Chat AI when the EF is going to be withdrawn. It said there still is no date or deadline to withdraw the Finding. Who told you that it is being withdrawn this week?
I will celebrate the day when it finally is withdrawn.
“Who told you that it is being withdrawn this week?”
Multiple media sources are saying this-
“Trump Admin Reportedly On Precipice Of Axing Climate Agenda Cornerstone
The Trump administration is planning to repeal this week an Obama-era and cornerstone climate regulation, according to The Wall Street Journal.”
Glad to hear it. Hope it’s true.
STORY TIP
https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2026/02/10/trump-admin-reportedly-on-precipice-of-axing-climate-agenda-cornerstone/
“The Trump administration is planning to repeal this week an Obama-era and cornerstone climate regulation, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The 2009 Endangerment Finding allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gasses — including carbon dioxide — under the Clean Air Act. Trump administration officials, speaking with anonymity, told WSJ that the final rule is set to be made public this week, and will be centered on repealing emissions standards for motor vehicles.
The final rule would also reportedly repeal related compliance programs and would pave the way for repealing power plant emissions standards, though it does not directly target them, according to the WSJ.”
Yes!
Like in Minnesota (the poster-child of corruption) and elsewhere, the well-connected, self-serving elites and self-serving politicians/bureaucrats, supported by evil foghorn of the leftist, woke corporate media (that needs a WaPo lobotomy), have dug their fraud, waste and abuse $tunnel to the $vault and don’t want the $vault moved.
Hold my beer
You omitted foreign actors.
You’re using the wrong AI system.
Yes apparently.
You’re wrong using an AI system is better phraseology.
Not to be nitpicky, but I do not quite agree the EF is the “foundation for all this nonsense.” It is the legal underpinning for the regulations that ensued. The foundation is the belief (religion) that CO2 is warming the planet to a catastrophic condition.
When they finally withdraw the EF, the house of cards will indeed crumble.
And a warmer world is a problem because why? A cooler world with shorter growing seasons and less rain . . . that might be a problem.
The entire “Climate Change” scare gas never made any sense.
Among the most famous practitioners of cybernetics was the British theorist and consultant Stafford Beer, author of the classic book Brain of the Firm. Beer popularized the concept of POSIWID (“the purpose of a system is what it does”), a profoundly clarifying insight that has formed the foundation of many a brainstorming session. As Beer correctly pointed out, if a system constantly fails to achieve its stated purpose, then its purpose is an unstated one, no matter how often politicians or business leaders insist otherwise.
John Brignell’s Warm List Is still up on the net and perfectly illustrates your point. None of the negative things listed on his page claimed to be caused by global warming have ever come true.
With respect to “The purpose of a system is what it does” The “Duck Test” says that it looks like the $Trillions on programs to tackle Climate Change were really designed to damage the world’s economy. The followers of Marx & Engels have never stopped fomenting their revolution.
Perhaps Steve, but it’s difficult to imagine a coordinated plan to destroy the modern world in multiple countries over generations of (scientifically illiterate) politicians. What do politicians care about? Appearance. Sound bites and phto-ops.
POSIWID is especially brutal for public policy because it exposes this pattern:
Political success is measured by announcements and spending, not service reliability
Procurement success is measured by compliance, not performance
Environmental success is measured by adoption metrics, not lifecycle outcomes.
Over a four year timeline, appearances matter, not results.
Money. and for most of them, power and control.
“What do politicians care about?”
Re-election and their personal “10% for the big guy.”
“Climate policy” has resulted in higher costs, restrictions on choices for the masses, and transfer of wealth and power to the wealthy and politically connected.
There’s your purposes right there.
Damaging the world’s economy certainly seems a primary objective.
Couple that with gathering wealth and power for the few elites.
“the UN has led efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions”
What exactly has the UN done to reduce CO2 emissions?
Besides attending, in person, countless meetings across the globe and living in luxury what in attendance?
How many of the computers used for the climate models are run on non-CO2 emitting energy generators?
Corrected statement:
“the UN has led efforts to give governments the power to dictate every aspect of people’s lives, by control over energy use”
Concur, but with UN coordination thereby establishing the One World Order.
“the UN has led efforts to talk about reducing carbon dioxide emissions”
FIFY
Yup. That is THE BIG LIE. The ridiculous notion that a warmer climate compared with the Little Ice Age is “bad” news.
Fighting “human-caused global warming” is like shadow boxing. Just punching air.
I’ve probably said this before, but I’ll say it again….
The UN COP conferences remind me of Einstein’s definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Those conferences become a bigger and bigger joke with each passing year. But too many people still take them seriously.
$$$$$$
Josh’s COP cartoons are priceless, and spot on. “Where’s my money?”
Oh that one is pure Gold and is going into my file. But those UN COP cocktail parties may be a thing of the past. COP 31 in Turkey might be cancelled. One can hope (-:
Can someone please forward the memo to Ed Miliband, the self appointed saviour of the planet.
“Barking” is the comment I put under a YouTube video this morning, UK time…
Maybe the king will dissolve parliament and call for elections (he can do that but probably won’t).
If I were king, I’d do it. Long overdue to put a stop to the Stupid.
He is a brainless Starmer lackey
And The Carney, PM in Canada and banker who was part of the ‘brain trust’ behind a lot of these shenanigans.
Atmospheric CO2 levels were not affected by reh Covid shutdowns either.
It’s almost as though the rise in CO2 is entirely non-anthropogenic.
Seeing as CO2 follows temperature with a lag of about 800 years in the ice core records, and seeing as the Medieval Warm Period was about 800 years ago…
This may be quite explicable.
As I’ve said before!
“It’s almost as though the rise in CO2 is entirely non-anthropogenic.”
Looks like a candidate for Occam’s Razor.
Coal is mentioned in this post. I have not seen a useful comparison of an older coal plant and new ones with a timeline of the adoption of ultra supercritical pulverized coal. New coal-fueled electrical facilities operate at high pressure and temperature, achieving greater efficiency than traditional coal plants. What are the differences?
When I see photos of coal facilities in media those photos are almost always a plume of dirty smoke against a clear sky. Comments on various articles often come from people that believe these black-belchers are the norm.
Search images for “old dark smoke electric coal facility”
There should be an effort to explain and show the difference. Insofar as the author, Steve Goreham, has already published in the Wall Street Journal, I nominate him to tackle this task. 🙂
” ….. a plume of dirty smoke against a dark sky ….”
No.
Amost always a plume of white water vapour coming from a cooling tower but photographed against the sky so that it looks dirty.
Also likely “enhanced” (aka “Photoshopped”) to make it look more pronounced…
A “good” photographer will get the effect without photoshopping.
For me, the slam-dunk on the collapse of net zero was when Mark Carney had to skulk back to Canada after his grifter gig of conning financial institutions into parting with taxpayers’ / investors’ money ‘because climate’ was widely seen through, and the whole house of cards collapsed.
Mark Carney
isWAS the Co-Chair for the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action, Chair of Brookfield Asset Management, and Head of Transition Investing at Brookfield Corporation.Now he’s just a 3rd rate retail politician with a minor party government, trying to pretend to backtrack on 10 years of idiot-son Justine Trudeau’s destructive climate bullshit, for which Carney himself was one of the main instigators.
If he pulls off this sleight of hand with Canadian voters who are now more worried about cost of living pressures, then that says that Carney and Canadian Liberal voters thoroughly deserve each other, and as someone presciently observed –
“voters should get exactly what they voted for.
and GOOD AND HARD!”
I caught an obvious error in the first sentence of the third paragraph of the above article, corrected here in bold type:
“Since the founding of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, the UN has led efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to try to fight presumed human-caused global warming.”
That one word additional makes a HUGE difference in the accuracy—and, thus, impact—of the sentence.
It truly boggles the mind how much the Climate Scam has cost humanity, not just in terms of dollars, but also in human capital. We as a species have gone completely in the wrong direction, one that diminishes us, making us poorer. Instead of fighting poverty, homelessness, and poor health, we’ve been fighting a complete phantom, and it is a travesty. As a species, we should be ashamed. We need to do better. So-called “clean energy” is nothing but a ruse, which the US, out of all nations is now waking up to that fact. We can only hope that this country prevails, and puts humanity back on the right track. All signs point to that as happening. My money is on humanity winning, but it has been a close call.
Great comment Bruce 🙂
Yes, and we need to get our language back too – the scammers followed the Orwell instruction manual to corrupt the language.
30 years ago: Weather is not climate.
20 years ago: Weather for 30 years is climate
5 years ago: Climate causes weather.
Either the definitions have changed or somebody has to have the definitions wrong.
30 years ago: Weather is not climate, unless it is “bad.,” in which case definitely caused by “climate change.”
20 years ago: Weather for 30 years is climate, if it is “bad.” Otherwise it’s not a “long term trend.”
5 years ago: Climate causes weather, if it is “bad;” otherwise it’s “natural variability.”
Figured I’d flesh it out a bit. 😉
Yes. The climate scam has been a complete failure of leadership both politically and academically. The general population rely on better informed people for guidance. This monumental failure deserves monumental wrath.
Great comment Bruce.
Only a small nit observation. It’s not the entire species. It seems to be the English-speaking subset of the species and a few countries in Western Europe. “Developing” countries including China and India are happily building coal power plants for themselves, while selling equipment for unreliable intermittent power production to the West.
Once called “Yankee Ingenuity.”
‘Businesses and political leaders now realize that Net Zero and ESG are not the keys to the future.’
These so-called leaders are not so bright if they are just now coming to that realization.
That was why I knocked a star off my rating for this post. Too little clarity.
Not “fighting human caused global warming,” but “fighting SUPPOSEDLY human caused global warming.”
Net zero “doesn’t support modern civilization,” it’s not just about “developing nations” and “data centers.”
I could go on…
Leaders? No. Followers. The Pied Piper of Trans-Reality Alarmism has been leading them by the (cough) “short hairs.”
We need to send this paragraph to every one of our alarmist politicians and challenge them either to briefly (say in 500 words) refute it with empirical scientific evidence or retract their fraudulent claims. There is no middle ground.
“There is no evidence that UN COP meetings and more than $10 trillion spent on renewables over the last 30 years have affected the climate. The average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which is blamed for global warming, has been rising over the last 50 years without any change to the trend.”
INCORRECTLY blamed for IMPROVING THE CLIMATE is how that should read.
I’m so sick of the inference that “warmer” compared with The Little Ice Age is a “problem.” Time to call out The Big Lie at every opportunity.
Goes back to what I have repeatedly posted.
There is no concise definition of optimum climate with measurable metrics that can be tested anywhere by anyone.
How do we know we are not moving towards the optimum?
Never was about climate or green energy. “Quotes”
“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?… In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” ~ Maurice Strong
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” ~ Maurice Strong
Western nations “developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class-involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing-are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.” ~ Maurice Strong
Strong and many other UN officials.
There should be a further finding that enhanced atmospheric CO2 is a massive benefit to the planet..
… that more is needed to reach optimum plant levels…
… and that all attempts to limit CO2 emissions will be taxed heavily.
“[CO2] has been rising over the last 50 years without any change to the trend.”
That is not quite true. According to your chart, the rate of CO2 growth is gradually increasing.
A closer analysis would show that the rate of increase seems to be controlled by ocean temperatures, with a slight spike then a step increase in the rate at each major El Nino event.
It would be interesting to see the results of Fourier Analysis of those 2 data sets.
Too long ago.. sorry ! 😉
If you have the data, make a csv file and have an AI do it for you. I’ve been experimenting with AI doing this. I’ve also had AI give me python scripts to play with data files (like the old awk in unix).
CO2 levels are still quite low, despite the rise. It’s been much higher in the past.
We still have a major problem to fix. This house of cards didn’t start collapsing until AI needed reliable electricity. We have to fix the system so that in future we can get action for people‘s needs. (Maybe AI can help us do this???)
No. You don’t need Ai to fix this. All you need is common sense and ethical voting. In other words vote not for parties but for individuals. This way you will get much less rubbish.
The problem being there is often lite in the way of good choices. Or ANY. See the US Democrat party “installing” Biden and then Harris, the first time by pushing viable candidates out of the race, the second time without a primary, and European elections where every party is all-in on the climate nonsense.
Yes. A chicken and egg problem that only the voters can solve by refusing to make bad choices. This is a feature not a bug.
The only slight slowing that’s visually noticeable on the CO2 trend chart is during the early 1990s. That was the combined effect of the end of the Cold War and Mount Pinatubo combined (Pinatubo cooled the world for a few years, which helped slow the growth of CO2). If those two phenomenal events can’t even bring the growth to a halt, and neither did the pandemic of 2020, then nothing will, short of something like a nuclear war or cataclysmic asteroid impact.
The killing of birds issue can’t even stop this madness.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/02/outrage-american-bald-eagle-killed-minnesota-clean-energy/
The final collapse of climate alarm will not be fast or soon. Too many vested interests still exist.
But collapse it will. Four basic reasons:
This is information that became abundantly clear even after the first decade of the COP conferences and whatever counterparts they’ve had. Except the proponents of these gatherings weren’t going to admit the obvious and abandon them as honest and forthright people might do because it would mean they’d have to give their up often taxpayer-funded free rides to exotic destinations where they could eat, drink, and be entertained while not being held accountable for achieving anything. The partial culprits here are the governments that persist in these fundings when what they should really do is abandon them for the failures they’ve proven to be and spend the money more wisely or save it entirely.
Is Klaus Schwab 87 years old? Who would replace him?
Larry Fink?
While there is no indication at this very moment that the U.K. government is changing it’s mind on renewables (Quite the reverse), when and if we get a sensible government that recognises just how poor renewables are, it is an uphill struggle to revert to conventional generation.
Much of our conventional plant is aged and has little life left, and due to global demand, lead time for new plant is many years away.
The government contracts with renewable companies is guaranteed and index linked to inflation and has a long life left for much of them, so we will have a financial hit one way or another until those terms expire.
Decommissioning is another huge cost, which is supposed to be borne by the operators, but have they the resources?
Politicians and advisors have a lot to answer for.
From the article: “The World Economic Forum (WEF), a forum of business leaders established in 1971, states: “business should not only create economic value but also serve society and the planet.” At the WEF Sustainable Development Impact Summit in 2020, more than 4,500 leaders called for a “Great Reset for Sustainable Development,” committing to reach Net Zero by 2050 or sooner.”
Which just goes to show how easily influenced even the “Movers and Shakers” of the business world really are. They are a bunch of conformists! They are being led around by the nose by a bunch of Climate Alarmist Propagandists!
And when the winds change, they change with it. They obviously don’t have a mind of their own.
Propaganda, in this world, is a very powerful and dangerous weapon. It separates the easily influenced from those based in reality. The Human-caused Climate Change Scam and TDS are the prime examples.
There is NO evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth. But these “smart” business people are not smart enough to figure this out. Instead, they believe what someone else tells them without critically examining the issue. They conform. They should stick to their area of expertise, and it is not climate science or psychology.
But is it really their naivete or stupidity? Or do the recognize that it represents the ultimate power grab – an attempt to gain absolute power over energy use.
Maybe they’re just megalomaniacs.
World leaders?! They’re not “world leaders.” They WANT to be, and “climate change” is their Trojan Horse intended to put them in the driver’s seat.