"Scanning this sad landscape, it’s hard not to conclude that we in the West are desperately concerned to fight climate change…but only when it feels good. Proven technologies that offend progressive aesthetics get left behind, because you can’t sell a green technology without a green halo. And as long as that’s the case, leaders in the developing world will keep rolling their eyes at our eco-lectures, seeing the shallowness of our commitments with a clarity that seems to elude us."
Something along these lines is the basis for a lot of my skepticism about how much of an emergency climate change really is. It was obvious for years that those who wanted to stop carbon emissions were ignoring nuclear, were putting all their emphasis on wind / solar (and maybe a bit of geothermal and hydroelectric where we can). Ignoring something like nuclear, which can be a major part of the solution, gave the lie to their claims of emergency, because if it was an emergency, we'd be looking at all the options quite seriously.
Right, well... because "climate change" isn't at all about saving the world from the weather. It is a construct from the WEF Great Reset project to defeat western industrial power so the CCP-backed globalist corporatist collectivist uniparty can gain more power and control of the world. Nuclear power is in fact the only sensible green alternative and with it in abundance there would be affordable electric energy for all... and the use of fossil fuel for remote and portable energy would become acceptable again as we eliminate the burning of fossil fuel for electrical generation.
If this analysis is correct, and I believe it is, this is the biggest story of the 21st century. Right now it just seems annoying, but as foolish leaders -- enabled by China with their cheap tech -- vainly attempt to transform human civilization with inferior energy sources, great suffering in third world and disruption everywhere will likely ensue. Persuasion should be one of the forums to mainline this issue. Soon enough there will be no ignoring it.
Spot on, except for the waste. Even that is hardly an issue. What other energy producing technologies have to store their waste? It's less and it's contained, very unlike fossil fuels or toxic chemicals in solar panels.
There is probably no issue I've changed my my mind about more unambiguously from when I was younger than nuclear power. But I knew this would bring out the "climate change isn't real" crowd. Tell it to the people in Pakistan who had to deal with 120 degree days last summer. Yeah, that's normal.
This article makes a critical point, "environmentalists" have done much harm to the cause. Certainly political and environmental leaders need to be more forthright about “climate change”. We also need to address other concerns..
It’s absurd to demonize “fossil fuels”, life as we know it would be impossible. This cheap and abundant energy has improved our lives, enhanced our lifestyle, health and reduced poverty in the world. Fossil fuels have made it possible to sustain the billions of lives on this planet. Otherwise modern cities, medicine, technology, public transportation systems, public health, and communications would not be feasible. Civilizations and societies would burn any combustible product. We’d be awash in soot, trash, horse manure, trying to survive on inadequate food supplies and killing whales, numerous other species and deforesting our land.
Aside from “fossil fuels” - petrochemicals (derived from fossil fuels) have made our lives, health, survival and thriving on a planet with 10 billion people possible.
Pose this question to politicians, “please explain how you will enable the northern tier of the United States, Canada and northern Europe and Asia to heat their homes without fossil fuels?”.Ms. Thunberg would find Sweden uninhabitable without fossil fuels, clearly she and numerous others ignore that fact.
There are no quick fixes or stop-gap measures. We all need to be reminded that nothing we do now will be measurable or perceptible until a generation or two has passed ~ 40 to 50 years. We’re not going to “stop” global warming, so politicians and leaders need to stop lying about it. We’ll be fortunate to reduce the rate of temperature increase.
It’s well past time to accelerate construction of nuclear power plants. These were and still are an excellent step towards reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
Given the projection of nearly 10 Billion persons inhabiting our planet, we’re surely headed in the wrong direction to mitigate climate change or other environmental depredations.
Everyone is overlooking or deliberately ignoring - the urgency of population control. This drives energy and resource requirements, over hunting, over-fishing, habitat loss, generation of trash and recyclables, plastic use, food production, land use, invasive species and every other dimension of the problem. All are the result of too many humans.
Every occupant of this planet requires food, clothing, shelter suitable to their locality. They will also require jobs, transportation and all the other resources essential to survival while living with numerous others; thus, ever increasing resource demands. We can’t have it both ways although some suggest that it is possible.
Simply, the earth would be better off if most of us were not on it. If we fail to limit population growth all other steps will have a limited and marginal effect. This is the primary key to mitigating the consequences. No politician is raising this issue. Worse yet, leaders such as yourself and advocacy groups including organizations are relatively silent on this issue.
Thank you for this article. Like many of their policies, the progressive left's energy policy is destabilizing and undermines our national and economic security. This fact is hidden under a cloak of "save the world" righteousness that has manipulated millions. The attacks against nuclear are the clearest signs that something is very wrong but when will more than a few pay attention?
The climate is changing. Are fossil fuels the cause? I don’t know for sure and neither does anyone else regardless of the endless rhetoric and censorship. Examine both sides of the subject in depth and one will discover that the only thing we know for certain is the science is not settled. We also know that while fossil fuels have resulted in the advancement of civilization, they also cause serious pollution. Reduction of toxic emissions is an essential goal on many levels.
We also know that until a solution for long term storage of energy is invented to overcome the variable nature of weather, wind and solar cannot satisfy current demand. Plus both have their own negatives not the least of which is increased foreign dependence. The only current energy source that can supply demand and reduce emissions is nuclear yet federal incentives are heavily stacked in favor of renewables rendering nuclear uncompetitive. Plus the NRC has rescinded extension permits for existing nuclear facilities and denied applications for new facilities forcing increased use of fossil fuels to supply demand. How does this make sense? How does it impact investment in nuclear?
We all should ask why nuclear is in the crosshairs. While I agree with the author regarding the “green halo”, chances are there is a far more sinister agenda and the “green halo” is simply a strategic tool to aid in its implementation.
"Scanning this sad landscape, it’s hard not to conclude that we in the West are desperately concerned to fight climate change…but only when it feels good. Proven technologies that offend progressive aesthetics get left behind, because you can’t sell a green technology without a green halo. And as long as that’s the case, leaders in the developing world will keep rolling their eyes at our eco-lectures, seeing the shallowness of our commitments with a clarity that seems to elude us."
Something along these lines is the basis for a lot of my skepticism about how much of an emergency climate change really is. It was obvious for years that those who wanted to stop carbon emissions were ignoring nuclear, were putting all their emphasis on wind / solar (and maybe a bit of geothermal and hydroelectric where we can). Ignoring something like nuclear, which can be a major part of the solution, gave the lie to their claims of emergency, because if it was an emergency, we'd be looking at all the options quite seriously.
Right, well... because "climate change" isn't at all about saving the world from the weather. It is a construct from the WEF Great Reset project to defeat western industrial power so the CCP-backed globalist corporatist collectivist uniparty can gain more power and control of the world. Nuclear power is in fact the only sensible green alternative and with it in abundance there would be affordable electric energy for all... and the use of fossil fuel for remote and portable energy would become acceptable again as we eliminate the burning of fossil fuel for electrical generation.
If this analysis is correct, and I believe it is, this is the biggest story of the 21st century. Right now it just seems annoying, but as foolish leaders -- enabled by China with their cheap tech -- vainly attempt to transform human civilization with inferior energy sources, great suffering in third world and disruption everywhere will likely ensue. Persuasion should be one of the forums to mainline this issue. Soon enough there will be no ignoring it.
Exactly. Perhaps a carbon-neutral future isn't environmentalists' real goal? Isn't THAT the most immediate and obvious conclusion to draw?
Spot on, except for the waste. Even that is hardly an issue. What other energy producing technologies have to store their waste? It's less and it's contained, very unlike fossil fuels or toxic chemicals in solar panels.
There is probably no issue I've changed my my mind about more unambiguously from when I was younger than nuclear power. But I knew this would bring out the "climate change isn't real" crowd. Tell it to the people in Pakistan who had to deal with 120 degree days last summer. Yeah, that's normal.
This article makes a critical point, "environmentalists" have done much harm to the cause. Certainly political and environmental leaders need to be more forthright about “climate change”. We also need to address other concerns..
It’s absurd to demonize “fossil fuels”, life as we know it would be impossible. This cheap and abundant energy has improved our lives, enhanced our lifestyle, health and reduced poverty in the world. Fossil fuels have made it possible to sustain the billions of lives on this planet. Otherwise modern cities, medicine, technology, public transportation systems, public health, and communications would not be feasible. Civilizations and societies would burn any combustible product. We’d be awash in soot, trash, horse manure, trying to survive on inadequate food supplies and killing whales, numerous other species and deforesting our land.
Aside from “fossil fuels” - petrochemicals (derived from fossil fuels) have made our lives, health, survival and thriving on a planet with 10 billion people possible.
Pose this question to politicians, “please explain how you will enable the northern tier of the United States, Canada and northern Europe and Asia to heat their homes without fossil fuels?”.Ms. Thunberg would find Sweden uninhabitable without fossil fuels, clearly she and numerous others ignore that fact.
There are no quick fixes or stop-gap measures. We all need to be reminded that nothing we do now will be measurable or perceptible until a generation or two has passed ~ 40 to 50 years. We’re not going to “stop” global warming, so politicians and leaders need to stop lying about it. We’ll be fortunate to reduce the rate of temperature increase.
It’s well past time to accelerate construction of nuclear power plants. These were and still are an excellent step towards reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
Given the projection of nearly 10 Billion persons inhabiting our planet, we’re surely headed in the wrong direction to mitigate climate change or other environmental depredations.
Everyone is overlooking or deliberately ignoring - the urgency of population control. This drives energy and resource requirements, over hunting, over-fishing, habitat loss, generation of trash and recyclables, plastic use, food production, land use, invasive species and every other dimension of the problem. All are the result of too many humans.
Every occupant of this planet requires food, clothing, shelter suitable to their locality. They will also require jobs, transportation and all the other resources essential to survival while living with numerous others; thus, ever increasing resource demands. We can’t have it both ways although some suggest that it is possible.
Simply, the earth would be better off if most of us were not on it. If we fail to limit population growth all other steps will have a limited and marginal effect. This is the primary key to mitigating the consequences. No politician is raising this issue. Worse yet, leaders such as yourself and advocacy groups including organizations are relatively silent on this issue.
Thank you for this article. Like many of their policies, the progressive left's energy policy is destabilizing and undermines our national and economic security. This fact is hidden under a cloak of "save the world" righteousness that has manipulated millions. The attacks against nuclear are the clearest signs that something is very wrong but when will more than a few pay attention?
The climate is changing. Are fossil fuels the cause? I don’t know for sure and neither does anyone else regardless of the endless rhetoric and censorship. Examine both sides of the subject in depth and one will discover that the only thing we know for certain is the science is not settled. We also know that while fossil fuels have resulted in the advancement of civilization, they also cause serious pollution. Reduction of toxic emissions is an essential goal on many levels.
We also know that until a solution for long term storage of energy is invented to overcome the variable nature of weather, wind and solar cannot satisfy current demand. Plus both have their own negatives not the least of which is increased foreign dependence. The only current energy source that can supply demand and reduce emissions is nuclear yet federal incentives are heavily stacked in favor of renewables rendering nuclear uncompetitive. Plus the NRC has rescinded extension permits for existing nuclear facilities and denied applications for new facilities forcing increased use of fossil fuels to supply demand. How does this make sense? How does it impact investment in nuclear?
We all should ask why nuclear is in the crosshairs. While I agree with the author regarding the “green halo”, chances are there is a far more sinister agenda and the “green halo” is simply a strategic tool to aid in its implementation.