EU’s Pretense of ‘Transition’ Leadership Is an Economic Loser

By Samuel Furfari

An Energy Institute report reveals a Europe clinging to the pretense of leading an “energy transition” as the continent declines under the weight of climate policies whose quixotically utopian objectives are negated elsewhere by fossil fuel-supported economic growth.

Data from the 75th edition of the annual “Statistical Review of World Energy” will surprise only those ignoring the facts: The world continues to depend massively on fossil fuels. Solar and wind technologies, while expanding, still lag ever-rising energy demand, which last year reached a record 600 exajoules. (That’s 600 quintillion joules, where a joule is equal to the work necessary to create one watt of power for one second.)

Of total primary energy consumption, 86% came from fossil fuels – oil at 33.5%; coal, 27.6%; natural gas, 25.1%. Accounting for just 3% were solar and wind, which are heavily promoted by the European Commission over the much-demonized hydrocarbons.

From 2015-2025, the first decade of the Paris Agreement on climate change, global energy consumption rose more than 14%, with sharply contrasting dynamics. European Union use declined about 1% annually while consumption in the Asia-Pacific region grew 2.6%.

Europe’s decreasing energy use is no triumph of ecological heroics but rather an outcome of the assault of the EU Green Deal on competitiveness and its predictable deindustrialization and economic decline. For example, in 2025, growth in gross domestic product for some European countries was close to zero, while the U.S. was 2% under the hydrocarbon friendly Trump administration. Some coal-burning Asians experienced multiples of that.

Noting this EU tragedy, the European Central Bank’s 2024  report on competitiveness blamed not climate policies directly but instead high energy prices the policies had wrought – a sleight of hand accommodating EU politics.

Meanwhile, the growth of fossil fuels outside the EU continued to outstrip significantly that of solar and wind. Contrary the Brussels narrative that the gap between so-called renewable technologies and fossil fuels is narrowing, the reality, in absolute terms, is a widening chasm. The EU has indeed integrated renewables into its grid, doing so at the cost of affordability and reliability. However, this leadership remains purely symbolic, because the rest of the world is accelerating its use of fossil fuels far faster than that of renewables.

In places like Asia, the expansion of hydrocarbon use concurrently with impressive economic growth was more than coincidental. It was necessary, and China and India led the way

Early this century, the impetus for Chinese growth was the lesson of the Soviet Union’s collapse, a result of deplorable living standards and a dim outlook for the future. The Chinese Communist Party recognized growth was needed to maintain its legitimacy and that abundant, cheap energy – mainly coal – would be the critical ingredient.

This prosperity is good news to everybody but those obsessed with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the bogeyman of the climate industrial complex. In its drive to cut emissions by 90% by 2040, the EU has reduced emissions by 554 million metric tons under the Paris Agreement as the rest of the world increased its own by 3 billion metric tons – fivefold in the opposite direction. The European effort is incinerated almost instantly by the combustion of fossil fuels elsewhere to support increased economic activity.

Most damning for 30 years of climate diplomacy is that global industrial emissions have risen by 67% since the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, according to the 2026 “Statistical Review of World Energy.” While the EU cut its emissions in that time by about 30%, the effort, achieved at enormous cost and deindustrialization, has been erased by other’s pursuit of human flourishing.

Compared with previous editions, the language of the latest Energy Institute analysis is markedly more favorable to renewables. One explanation may the publisher’s collaboration with Ember, a self-identified “energy think tank that aims to accelerate the clean energy transition with data and policy.” The Energy Institute itself seeks “to accelerate a just, secure, and low carbon energy transition.”

Obviously, our skepticism about the EU’s green agenda is based on the data presented in the report not from the publishers’ interpretation of it. We sought to contrast the pathetic product of EU energy policy with the promising economic rise of others.

Despite the omnipresent rhetoric of the energy transition, the evidence must be faced: The dominance of fossil fuels in the world energy system persists even as wind and solar, expensive and intermittent, expand. The world is undergoing an energy addition, not a transition, as new technologies supplement the growing capacity of legacy sources.

The great majority of mankind aspires to more prosperity, which requires abundant and cheap energy – what the EU employed before adopting ecological dogma. The clash between climate ambitions and economic aspirations will only intensify.

Originally published at The Center Square, July 23rd, 2026.

Dr. Samuel Furfari is a professor of energy geopolitics in Brussels and London, a former senior official with the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy and a member of the CO2 Coalition. He is author of the paper, “Energy Addition, Not Transition,” and 18 books, including “The Truth About the COPs: 30 years of illusions.”

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 7 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
64 Comments
Sean2828
July 30, 2026 2:52 am

It’s long past time to lose the distinction between developed and developing countries. China is the world’s largest emitter and an industrial powerhouse. India wants to follow the same path along with numerous other counties in Asia. I suspect the UN’s strategy is they’ve found it a useful tool to build consensus in the developing world but that tool has turned their emissions objectives into a complete farce.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Sean2828
July 30, 2026 6:44 am

Perhaps.
Perhaps it is also the behind the scenes influences of China and others to guide the west to economic destruction.
After all, it has always been China’s goal (since the 1927-1949 revolution) to run the world by their rules.

Now we can wait for it.
Our favorite trolls are overdue to “man-splain” to us how it is the US and EU and NATO, etc., etc., etc., that are the world’s biggest evil empires.

Edit: I should have read the comments before posting. He is already active.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Sean2828
July 30, 2026 8:09 am

According to The recently published Energy Institute ‘2026 Statistical Review of World Energy’

The Asia -Pacific Region was the largest energy consuming region in 2025 (47% of global energy supply) It remained coal dependent with 83% of global coal use led by China and India.

Paradoxically it was also the largest source of unreliables growth

kwinterkorn
Reply to  Dave Andrews
July 30, 2026 2:15 pm

Not really paradoxical.

In the interest of economic growth India and China have an “all of the above” policy toward energy development.

Yet both are heavily dependent on imports such as oil for their mix of energy use. In the interest of geopolitical indepence, they both then have incentives to reduce as much as economically feasible their oil imports by developing wind and solar-—and nuclear energy.

Consider the effect of the current US-Iran war limiting oil flow through the Straight of Hormuz. This hurts China and India substantially, encouraging further diversification away from oil-based energy, even if dyseconomic in the short run.

strativarius
July 30, 2026 3:26 am

Speaking of leadership

Miliband refused to meet motor trade body to discuss zero emissions mandate

Ed Miliband refused to meet the UK motor industry’s largest trade body during his two-year stint as energy secretary, despite the government’s controversial targets for electric vehicle sales falling partly under his department’s purview.
https://www.cityam.com/miliband-refused-to-discuss-zev-mandate/

Whadda guy.

Scissor
Reply to  strativarius
July 30, 2026 4:30 am

Maybe someday, whatever he is, will transition into a man.

strativarius
Reply to  Scissor
July 30, 2026 4:42 am

You must be joking?

Britain’s Collision Course With Trump’s Energy Counter-Revolution
By Tilak Doshi

Well worth reading.

Miliband’s record gives Washington plenty of substantive grounds for concern beyond old insults: he has been a vocal opponent of new North Sea drilling and, as one commentator noted, led opposition within government to the US use of Diego Garcia for American bombers – hardly the profile of a British Foreign Secretary Washington would have preferred. Washington’s entire strategy at the World Bank and IMF has been to strip out precisely the climate mandate creep that Miliband now intends to reassert from his new perch. 

Reply to  strativarius
July 30, 2026 4:56 am

he will find still less to like in a Downing Street occupied by an unapologetic green activist and a Foreign Secretary who has spent a decade insulting him. Miliband once called Trump a “racist, misogynistic, self-confessed groper”

Vance called him “America’s Hitler” and he still chose him as running mate. Although maybe he saw it as a compliment. Or Thiel money made him forget.

It’s also not an insult when it’s true.

strativarius
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 5:13 am

Did he? I heard Trump forgives those who care to accept they were wrong. But Miliband – in his low traffic neighbourhood mind – is the zealot’s zealot. No wonder he’s a hero of yours.

Scissor
Reply to  strativarius
July 30, 2026 5:48 am

There might be a hand full of people with IQs above 100 in that crowd, Branson would be one.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 6:47 am

Not worth the powder.

Scissor
Reply to  strativarius
July 30, 2026 8:43 am

If there is doubt about what I meant, then I’m likely joking, of course I might just be being childish as I don’t have the hang of being super-cereal.

Sean2828
Reply to  strativarius
July 30, 2026 5:51 am

I think you are being a little harsh on Ed.

Remember, the met with Chinese President Xi Jinping more than a year ago but for some reason he was quite reticent to discuss the details of the meeting. It would not surprise me that they had quite a long discussion about the ZEV mandate. I’ve read where BYD is hoping to sell 100,000 EV’s to the UK by 2030. That would be equivalent to 1/7 of the current UK vehicle production output. There are at least three other large EV manufacturers in China that could probably deliver that volume to the UK.

Anyone want to make bets on the viability of UK automotive production in the next decade?

strativarius
Reply to  Sean2828
July 30, 2026 6:06 am

China has us over a net zero barrel

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  strativarius
July 30, 2026 6:50 am

Not quite accurate enough.

China is opportunistically taking advantage of UK putting themselves on the net zero barrel.

The nuanced difference is China did not (directly) cause this, although there are possibilities China is working behind the scenes to influence UN organizations to its favored policies.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Sean2828
July 30, 2026 8:15 am

UK car production is already back to 1950’s level.

July 30, 2026 3:39 am

The EU has indeed integrated renewables into its grid, doing so at the cost of affordability and reliability.

The Ukraine and Iran war had the biggest impact on prices and affordability (showing the volatility of fossil fuel prices). Renewables were able to shield europe from the impact that would have been far worse.

strativarius
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 4:06 am

What we really need is [financial] shielding from the ludicrous expense of part time energy.

So far in 2026, Britain has wasted £968,977,053 switching off wind turbines and paying gas plants to switch on. Wasted wind

Reply to  strativarius
July 30, 2026 4:39 am

Easy. Build more storage and a better grid. Or keep wasting money on volatile fossil fuels.

strativarius
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 4:54 am

So far in 2026, Britain has wasted £968,977,053 switching off wind turbines and paying gas plants to switch on. Wasted wind

Doubling down is what you people appear to do best. Part time energy is and always will be.. part time.

Batteries are only good for frequency fluctuations, besides as storage they wouldn’t last 5 minutes anyway – and what use is that in a dunkelflaute???

Scissor
Reply to  strativarius
July 30, 2026 5:50 am

Globally, trillions have been spent. We would have been better off using insulation to reduce heat loss and using air compressors and gauges to properly inflate tires.

What a waste the green con march has been.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  strativarius
July 30, 2026 8:22 am

Average duration of BESS in UK is currently just under 2 hours. NESO’s (National Energy System Operator) plan is to increase it to 3-4 hours by 2030

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 5:18 am

Hydrocarbon fuels, when managed properly are the most consistent and cheapest supply of energy on the planet.

They are capable of providing , ON DEMAND, 24/7 something wind and solar can never do.

They are also FAR cleaner over their life span than the toxic production, environmental damaging and leaching landfill that wind and solar give over their short erratic, unreliable lifespan.

People wanting wind and solar must absolutely HATE nature and economic prosperity.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bnice2000
July 30, 2026 7:22 am

They have the mental illness of believing (1) the planet has to be saved from humanity and (2) the only way to save the planet is to destroy it.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 8:47 am

There would be no grid without fossil fuels. No matter how much of that worse-than-useless crap gets built.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 7:02 am

Here he is again spewing his disinformation.
From the reader’s perspective, he might actually believe what he posts.
If that is indeed the case, the the term misinformation would be more applicable.

I prefer the wisdom offered by Protagoras and Plato that nothing can be proven in absolute Terms. Disproven, yes. And that is the actual basis of the scientific method.

I prefer the engineering discipline of the analysis of alternatives.
Very useful tool.
If someone needs that explained, I shall be pleased to educate.

My wife is a CPA and professor of accounting.
She has educated me from the CPA point of view cost-risk-benefit analysis.
That strengthened my engineering education in that field.
Very useful tool.

The biggest impact on prices and affordability are the mis-named renewables. Certainly the hydrocarbon futures market pricing has cause volatility, but the price and affordability problems existed many years prior to the Iranian disruptions.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 8:33 am

Or the EU could simply produce their own fossil fuels at a lower cost.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 30, 2026 9:07 am

Or they could cost-effectively import them through pipelines from producers. Oh, wait…

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 9:05 am

The biggest impact on prices and affordability the EU blowing up the Northstream pipeline.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Phil R
July 30, 2026 1:10 pm

There have been many reports accusing one individual/organization or another of being responsible for the Northstream blowup. Point is, we do not know with any confidence it was not Russia.

So put up a website with all of the reports and lets see if we can reach a consensus.

kwinterkorn
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 2:22 pm

Gasoline prices were at least as high under Biden. At least Trump is at war with the Mullahs, whereas Biden was at with America’s own energy industry.

Millibrand seems anti-UK, working hard to ensure the ongoing UK Green suicide—-much like Merz and his Leftist coalition partners in Germany.

CD in Wisconsin
July 30, 2026 3:57 am

For all the growth in fossil fuel power plants in Asia, the United States isn’t exactly going to be sitting on its hands either over the next decade. Chat AI tells me the following:

“Based on the most recent 2025–2026 data, the U.S. is planning on the order of 250–450 new fossil‑fuel (mostly natural‑gas) power plants that could come online over the next decade — but only a fraction will actually be built. The realistic buildout is likely closer to 150–250 plants, depending on demand growth, permitting, cancellations, and data‑center load.
Below is a detailed, citation‑based breakdown.

https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f1fa-1f1f8.svg
1. What the current pipeline shows (2025–2036)
Gas‑fired plants in development

  • 252 GW of gas‑fired capacity is in development as of early 2026 (announced + pre‑construction + construction).
  • This represents the largest gas‑plant pipeline in U.S. history, nearly tripling from 2024 levels.
  • If all projects are built, the U.S. gas fleet would grow by ~50%.”

********

That most of the U.S. power plant growth will be natural gas rather than coal doesn’t detract from the fact that fossil fuels are not going anywhere in the U.S. anytime soon. I believe that there is also a new oil refinery being built down in Texas as well.

The anti-fossil fuel pushers are living in a fantasy land if they think that wind and solar will cause fossil fuels to disappear and fade away sometime in the foreseeable future.

Scissor
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 30, 2026 4:34 am

They should be identified as the natural life-saving wonders of carbon and hydrogen that they are.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 30, 2026 4:45 am

I wouldn’t bank too much on Asia

Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ for renewables mean for climate change?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-does-chinas-15th-five-year-plan-for-renewables-mean-for-climate-change

Specifically, China will aim to install 3,500 gigawatts (GW) of renewables capacity by 2030, 2,800GW will be wind and solar. 

The country had previously pledged to install 1,200GW of wind and solar by 2030, a goal that China met six years early.

[…]

A particular focus for new R&D will be “cutting-edge, original and disruptive technologies”. It also points to technologies that “enhance the reliability of renewable energy” as a substitute for fossil fuels.

IEA: India’s Electricity Demand to Grow 7% as Renewables Overtake Coal Globally

https://www.carboncopy.info/iea-india-s-electricity-demand-to-grow-7-as-renewables-overtake-coal-globally

India, one of the world’s fastest-growing major electricity markets, is expected to see electricity demand rise by 7% in 2026 after a slower 2025. IEA said that rapid industrial activity and severe summer heatwaves pushed power demand to record highs. 

During these periods, solar supplied more than 60 GW, around 22% of India’s daytime peak electricity demand, highlighting its growing role in meeting rising consumption.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 5:31 am

China or India use very little wind and solar for electricity compared to COAL.

comment image

And when it comes to total energy in Asia.. wind and solar are basically a non-entity.

comment image

For “renewables” capacity is a meaningless term, because it is NEVER capable of providing anything remotely near that capacity except on very rare occasions.
—-
Meanwhile

China’s New Coal Power Installations Reach 18-Year High

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bnice2000
July 30, 2026 7:08 am

Oh, but it is constantly renewing. It goes off. It goes on. Isn’t that a form of renewal??

/sarc

bobclose
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 6:58 am

Based on renewables tiny growth versus fossil fuels and nuclear over the past 20 years, we will not see renewables ever replacing reliable baseload power technology in our lifetime. Inefficient solar and wind will become accessory additional power sources where required, to newer much better technology not yet invented. We do not need to rush into this process, as there is no climate crisis or emissions problem that we need to solve in our immediate future, the rest is politics and environmental bullshit!

Dave Andrews
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 8:35 am

“Fossil Fuels continued to expand in absolute terms accounting for 86% of total energy supply” in 2025.

Energy Institute ‘2026 Statistical Review of World Energy’

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 8:52 am

“Daytime peak.” LMFAO. And that’s all it will ever do. Worse-than-useless. Nothing but a waste of resources.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 30, 2026 5:13 am

The nice thing about coal is that if we don’t use more now we can use it later.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
July 30, 2026 7:09 am

Another nice thing about coal is one can store it just about anywhere, including next to the generation station and the generation station can be located just about anywhere and uses a much smaller land foot print than massive “farms.”

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 30, 2026 11:25 am

Yup, better than natural gas for baseload, for that reason. Unlike NG, you can stockpile coal to prevent supply disruption from turning into generation/SERVICE disruption.

Bruce Cobb
July 30, 2026 4:28 am

Adding “renewables” to the grid is like adding dog poo to your pancake batter. It saves some on the cost of flour, and you have to be careful not to add too much. Other than that though, I guess it’s okay.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 30, 2026 7:10 am

The untarnished (/sarc) definition of niche applications.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 30, 2026 11:26 am

😆😅🤣😂 That’s perfect!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 30, 2026 1:07 pm

Excellent analogy!

Perhaps we could persuade Myusernameretarded to actually try this out in his own kitchen. He’s dumb enough.

July 30, 2026 5:07 am

The Actual State of Climate Change (2026)
 
What does climate science actually say—and where does it differ from the public narrative? In this talk, physicist Steve Koonin draws on his experience as a Caltech professor, former BP Chief Scientist, and former U.S. Undersecretary for Science to examine climate models, IPCC reports, energy policy, and the gap between scientific evidence and public communication. He argues for a more evidence-based conversation about climate risk, uncertainty, and the trade-offs behind today’s policy decisions.
 


bobclose
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
July 30, 2026 7:35 am

Great talk Koonin, you have said most of what needs to be told about climate and the non- existent energy transition, what the science really says versus models and the political activist interpretation, and what we should be doing about it. However, you still believe the IPCC science about CO2 emissions causing global warming, how come? when there is so much good science showing that CO2 has little to no effect in the greenhouse IR effect, water vapour is more potent and abundant as a GH gas and acts to modulate temperature trends through clouds. Apart from the human caused urban heat island effect which is local, how has man changed the global climate?

Reply to  bobclose
July 30, 2026 7:55 am

I don’t think he believes it CAUSES GW but that it is a contributor at some unknown scale. He’s well aware of all the natural, potential contributors along with the reality that there are a lot more people now than 2 centuries ago and a great deal of land use change which must have an effect on the climate. But, you might like to ask him, if that’s possible. I know that your critique of him is a common one, but all things considered, he’s helping us a great deal by saying it’s not a threat. I’m too lazy now to look in his book to see what he says about causes. I will later.

Reply to  bobclose
July 30, 2026 11:28 am

Agreed, he has some good points, but he also stipulates too much of the bullshit being true.

Ronald Stein
July 30, 2026 5:49 am

The “Energy Transition” is only an “Electricity Transition”.

EU’s renewable ELECTRICITY expansion, driven by subsidies does NOT address REALITY that the EU economy runs on transportation fuels and the more than 6,000 products made from those oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil

Jet fuel for the military and international airports, diesel fuel for trucks and construction equipment, different grades of gasoline for vehicles, and bunker fuel for all the ships arriving and departing from Ports.

Crude oil by itself is useless black tar, unless you build a multi-billion-dollar refinery to break it down to produce various types of transportation fuels like, jet, diesel, gasoline, and bunker fuel for ships, and oil derivatives that are the basis of more than 6,000 products in our materialistic world.

Wind turbines and solar panels can ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make any of the products or transportation fuels MADE FROM oil.
 

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Ronald Stein
July 30, 2026 7:19 am

Perhaps not an electricity transition? An electricity addition, perhaps?
By either definition, WTGs and WVs are a waste of money, materials, land, and have severe, often ignored, environmental impacts.

Wonderful how words are abused.
Not you, Ronald, but in general.
You use electricity, which is the correct word.

Electricity is not energy. It is the flow of electrons, Coulombs per second.
A Watt is not energy. It is power and is voltage times current.
Energy is Joules (an other terms) which is Watts times time.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 30, 2026 8:06 am

flow of electrons” … and being a bit pedantic:
Using flow — as in a water hose — is a common analogy when trying to explain electricity. It does ignore that in alternating current, electrons go slowly almost nowhere. Electrons that begin at a facility never reach my house.
“Charge” is likely a term a non-technical person would relate to, while very few people will know of Coulombs. 

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 30, 2026 1:14 pm

AC transits a conductor.
It is a form of amplitude modulation.

Reply to  Ronald Stein
July 30, 2026 11:35 am

True, but you need to go two steps further:

1. Wind and solar CANNOT keep a grid working on their own, and their need of 100% backup renders them completely useless even in that limited role; and

2. You can’t produce wind turbines or solar panels without every energy input coming from COAL, OIL AND GAS anyway – and they don’t last very long so their manufacturing will be continuously WASTING resources that can supply ALL energy needs WITHOUT any meaningless, worse-than-useless “contributions” from wind and solar.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 30, 2026 11:36 am

is 2. the eroi < 1 argument again?

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 1:11 pm

Let’s see you manufacture solar panels or wind turbines using renewable energy exclusively.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 30, 2026 2:09 pm

Wind and solar add significantly to the grid cost of electricity, as shown by costs of electricity where-ever there is even small amounts of junk electricity allowed on the grid..

And let’s not mention the horrendous pollution and environmental and ecological damage done by wind and solar at every step in their short life span.

July 30, 2026 8:05 am

“The world continues to depend massively on fossil fuels.”

No, he world continues to depend COMPLETELY on fossil fuels. You can’t build a wind turbine or solar panel without them. You can’t source the materials to build them without fossil fuels.

When your supposed “transition” is 100% dependent upon what you are supposedly “transitioning” FROM, the “transition” is a delusional fantasy.

claysanborn
July 30, 2026 8:53 am

The collective EU Climate Policies have done to the greater EU economies what Dr. Fauci did to organized health in America to Americans (and Canadians, etc.). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the European Central Bank, etc., have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted, for anything. Fauci’s criminal debacle is only the tip of a tip of an iceberg of global gov’t malfeasance regarding COVID. No doubt the greater part of all “green energy” realities (as partly exposed in this article) are likewise still hiding under the deep state water, lying in wait until the momentum of repentant sanity rolls it over and exposes it dark underbelly. For example, what entities are really behind “renewable green energy”, and what are their real objectives – as shown here again, it can’t be economic growth. Communism; end to freedoms in the west? Someone please call this a conspiracy.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  claysanborn
July 30, 2026 1:17 pm

When the momentum of repentant sanity rolls it over, those pushing the fantasies will scatter to new dark places and strike again from a different direction.

Bob
July 30, 2026 6:23 pm

Very nice. In the future people will look at the EU as a example of what not to do.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Bob
July 30, 2026 8:16 pm

and the UN, it is also well past its use-by date.

observa
July 30, 2026 9:34 pm

Maintaining the rage-
EU’s competition chief Ribera slams climate deniers as fires rage: ‘They are lying’
Yooz climate deniers will burn in Hell for this and all them thar excess unalivings,