Governments around the world have already spent more than two trillion ($2,000,000,000,000) on projects to go “green”.  Despite this vast sum, the percentage of energy produced which is “green” has not increased as a percentage of total energy used around the world.  Why is that?

One reason is that the people of developing countries, for some strange reason, want to live a better, easier, and longer life.  They want substantial housing, a better diet, warmth in the winter and coolness in the summer.  As a result of these strange desires, they are using more energy and they want the energy to be efficient and cheap.  How selfish of them!  For some reason they are more concerned about improving their standard of living than worrying if the Earths temperature will go up one degree in fifty years. The fact is that the demand for energy is growing faster than the “green” movement can produce; the technology simply is too inefficient.

Another reason why “green” energy has not replaced fossil fuels is that “green” is neither inexpensive nor efficient.  Germany for example which has made a major commitment to going “green” has seem their carbon footprint increase due to the unreliability of “green” energy.  Who would have thought that solar panels do not work well in parts of a country where many of the days are overcast. Image that!

Despite the high cost and inefficiency of going “green”, there are those who still believe.  After all, they believe in science and if you disagree with them, you don’t believe in science. True or not, one thing the environmentalists do not understand or believe in is the basic rules of supply and demand.  They resist the fact that to go “green”, they will have to scar the Earth’s surface with thousands of mines to reach the minerals (also known as rocks) which are needed to build all the windmills and solar panels that are currently being resisted by communities around the world.

The video linked below explains the massive projects and huge amounts of money which need to be allocated to moving “green” energy forward.  At the current time, not one new mine is on the drawing boards in the United States (there was one in Minnesota but by Executive Order, President Biden shut it down).  Due to environmental regulations (which of course cannot be eased) and lawsuits, it takes ten years from the start to production of a mine.  As a result, the United States is putting its energy future in the capable and loving hands of Communist China (remember what happened to Germany when they did the same with Russia?).

This excellent short video should make you wonder who is running this “green” agenda and what do they have against progress.  Do we really need or want to march boldly backwards into the fourteenth century?

https://www.prageru.com/video/how-much-energy-will-the-world-need

It is amazing how many of those who claim to “follow science” only look as far as the tip of their nose. I believe it is because sometimes they do not have the expertise or worldly experience to consider all the factors which may impact their own personal or messianic agenda.  At other times, it is because they do not wish to be disturbed by some inconvenient facts, such as cost, contributing factors, outside influences which might upset their wonderful vision, etc.  Sometimes, it is just plain ignorance and laziness that allows them to disregard important realities which would upset or even destroy their vision.

The attached article begins to bring up numerous factors which will impact the vision of EVs.  One of the most obvious questions is whether EVs are as “green” as proclaimed and why is it that certain key factors are ignored by their loudest cheerleaders?  Ignorance, laziness or just an age-old human desire to believe in something that is promised as a quick and easy “fix”?  Unfortunately, history has shown us that the “quicker and easier” the fix, the more costly it is in the long run.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/electric-vehicles-and-carbon-emissions

Did you know that to mine enough minerals to meet the production needs for all the new batteries, windmills, etc. in going “green”, we will need to open hundreds of new mines.  Yet, it takes an average of sixteen years to open a new mine, not one new mine is being proposed and the mining industry is decreasing it’s investments in new mines.  Yet somehow, for all of the gladhanding of our political class and the stary eyed activists, this one fundamental fact, this one overwhelming need is never discussed.

But it does get better.  Suppose through some miracle, the huge investment cost of all the new mines became available, and suppose that the environmentalist did not file hundreds of lawsuits to stop the mines, the fact remains that given the projected need for batteries and the change in the infrastructure, we would exhaust the world’s supply of copper in one year.  And, no, there is no known replacement for copper.

The plans for going “green” also happens to ignore one small fact: the need for energy will only increase.  Before the auto was invented, there was no need for more energy, but once the tires hit the road, the need for energy became apparent.  The same is true for the airplane, the computer, the television, the dishwasher, etc.  Today, the energy needed to operate the “cloud” demands more energy than the entire commercial aircraft fleet of the world.  How much energy will AI require?  Or, is the answer to stop man’s natural instinct to move forward, to find a better way to do a job, to create more opportunities to create a higher standard of living by creating wealth around the world? The poverty rate of the world has decreased due to the availability of greater energy.

The link below to the excellent video of Mark Mills of the Manhattan Project points out those simple facts and many others which show that for all the fuss, fire and proclamations, the current dreams of doing away with fossil fuels is an unreachable dream. Unreachable due to time, costs, mineral availability, and the natural increase in the need for energy as humanity moves forward.  Or is the answer really to move boldly into the fourteenth century as the “green” movement demands?

• 1967: Dire Famine by 1975
• 1969: In 20 years, everyone will “disappear in a cloud of blue smoke” (air pollution)
• 1970: A new Ice Age by 2000
• 1970: The U.S. will be subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980
• 1971: A new Ice Age in 50-60 years
• 1972: A new Ice Age by 2070
• 1974: Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast
• 1974: Ozone layer will be destroyed
• 1980: Acid rain is a major problem
• 1988: Increased drought in the 1990s
• 1989: Rising seas to “obliterate” nations by 2019 per the U.N.
• 1989: NYC’s west side highway will be under water by 2019
• 2000: Children in the U.K. will not know what snow is due to warming
• 2002: Worldwide famine within 20 years
• 2004: The U.K. to have “Siberian climate” by 2020
• 2006: Per Al Gore, withing 10 years, the Earth will be turned into a “total frying pan”
• 2008: Artic to be ice free by 2018
• 2009: Only 8 years to save the Planet
• 2009: Per the U.K. PM, only 50 days to “save the Planet from Catastrophe”
• 2013: Ice Free Artic by 2015
• 2014: Per a French Minister, only “500 days to avoid climate chaos”

I could expand that list, but it does remind us that there is a huge environmental industry that thrives on painting a picture of death and disaster. They are seldom if ever held to account, so in that way they mirror government: action without oversight. But perhaps there is hope?

The articled linked below discussed the admission by Green Peace that the attempt to recycle plastics has been and will continue to be a total failure. Amazing! The cost and effort of collecting, sorting, recycling, etc. actually contributes to damage to the environment. Of course, Green Peace does not apologize for the decades of their crusading for recycling and the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars that might have been spend on something worth the effort. In fact, Green Peace suggests even more draconian actions which if their recycling campaign is a measure, will cost more money in the pursuit of a fool’s dream.

You might wish to save the list above to remind you that the environment industry will never rest. Given the incorrect predictions above, many of them from the U.N. itself, we need to be a bit more skeptical of the science and motives of those who proclaim the most. In a recent U.N. report, it stated that even if all the promises and goals of all the nations were kept, the original U.N. goal for controlling the Earth’s temperature could not be achieved. At the same time, in a backhanded manner, the same U.N. report admits that its original projection was incorrect (shocking), and that even more drastic action must be taken to save if not humanity, at least the Earth. How drastic? Once proposal is to slaughter any animal we use as food and that we all become vegans. No, I am not kidding.

Let us hope we can be saved from those who wish to save us and create their own Brave New World.

https://www.city-journal.org/greenpeace-admits-recycling-doesnt-work

I must confess that I have never put much faith in conspiracy theories. I never gave a second thought that Trump was an agent of the Russians, or that the Russians had a major impact on any U.S. election. The idea that a hacker in Bolivia or Mongolia tapped into our voting machines and robbed Hillary of the Presidency was silly from the get-go. Sorry, I never put credence in the theory that the FBI paid Jack Ruby to kill Oswald and no, the moon landing happened. Why? Well, some theories are just too silly to begin with but the one sure way to tell if the theory is plausible is by looking at who supports them. I could name numerous television talk show hosts who have managed to broadcast their ignorance with great relish, along with icons from Hollywood and of course, the world of politics.

Recently however, I have begun to think there might just be an international conspiracy afoot as I am reluctant to believe that so many national leaders can possibly be as stupid as they appear. When a nation like the U.S goes from energy independence to energy shortage due to an almost mystical belief in imperfect and immature alternative energy sources in just one year, and is supported by national leaders around the world, theat is something to support a conspiracy theory.

Think of it; Germany closes it nuclear power plants, spends tens of billions on solar energy in a country where the sun does not shine for many months of the year. When the German economy is threatened by the cut off from Russian energy, the Canadian Prime Minister turns down an opportunity to sell its energy and continues to create debt at a record pace. Meanwhile Sri Lanka has food shortages and riots in the street due in large part to a “green” agenda while at the same time in Canada and the Netherlands the governments are demanding farmers use less fertilizer which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels in production. The result will be higher food costs, less production and food shortages from countries that are major contributors of food to third world nations.

Can national leaders be so ignorant of the results of their policies? Are they that detached from the lives of those they claim to represent? Are they all part of a global coven or are they just that stupid? It is scary as the worse science fiction scenarios I read when I was young seem to be happening right before my eyes.

The attached article by Eric Nuttall lays out a solid argument for a change in Canadian energy policy which of course, shall be ignored. But, more importantly, it highlights the very real advantages to average Canadians by such a change, one that is certainly no different than the advantages in any other fossil fuel producer country. Plentiful, cheap energy is the life blood of economic growth and nations which deliberately ignore that idea do so at their own peril and to the detriment of other nations and peoples.

https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/eric-nuttall-canada-give-world-more-natural-gas

The attached article by Mr. Lomberg raises a key question: in a society based on competition and the freedom of consumers to find products that best fit their needs, why does the government mandate you accept a product they prefer? What exactly is the benefit to the consumer? Is it:

• Less costly
• More efficient
• Provide better service/value

If the mandated product does not address the points above, then what is the rational for the mandate? It should raise significant questions for when the last time was the government mandated a product which altered the consumers buying pattern. The one example that comes to mind is the Affordable Care Act which among other things, promised that it would be less expensive and that you could keep your old doctor. How did that work out?

Bjorn Lomborg has excellent environmental credentials, and he often suggests options which are not only less expensive to all parties, but less traumatic. I hope you enjoy his article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/policies-pushing-electric-vehicles-show-why-few-people-want-one-cars-clean-energy-gasoline-emissions-co2-carbon-electricity-11662746452

Pity the small business owner in Great Britain! Imagine their feelings of trepidation as they are ready to renew their three-year energy contract with their local provider. They know the price of energy has been going up and the last contract was a just bearable $31,000 but the new contract has finally arrived. They open it and there must be a misprint! $135,000! (NYT, 9/3/2022, B1) No, it is not a misprint, it is the result of years of just in time energy deliveries (not enough storage), the war in the Ukraine and most importantly, two decades of green energy policies which has cut into the North Sea oil fields and stopped fracking.

Unfortunately, the above story is all too common in Great Britain today. Energy bills are going up 80% for homeowners and the new Prime Minister has moved quickly to put a cap on these increases for the next two years. The cost? About $115.35 billion or 4% of annual economic output. Given that the government debt is already at 95.5% of annual economic output, such subsidies will cause higher inflation for years to come. All this while estimates are that 100,000 businesses could close due to high energy prices. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of workers in transportation, trash services and energy have walked off their jobs to protest the excessive cost of energy and the resulting inflation.

Not the best of time to be the new Prime Minister! Fortunately, she has acted quickly and has eliminated the band on fracking and hopes are that it will pay off as soon as March 2023 which will help. Some people do learn and are willing to lead from the front.

The world is facing a crisis in its climate policies. The U.S. has gone from energy independence and being an exporter of fossil fuels to being an importer; will our leadership continue to ignore reality as Janet Yellen has (see link below) or will some adults appear and take the children in hand? The time for daydreaming and wistful ideals is over.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/janet-yellens-fantasy-economy-biden-administration-inflation-wages-dearborn-michigan-11662674409?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-global-crisis-of-climate-policy-europe-germany-energy-prices-bankruptcy-winter-subsidies-borrowing-green-nuclear-11662651070?mod=opinion_featst_pos3

The riots and political upheaval in Sri Lanka demonstrate that food and energy are the basic building blocks of a modern society. Political leaders who temper with them in the name of “going green” or other “enlightened” ideals are putting their nation at risk as they increase energy costs, decrease the food supply, and disrupt the equilibrium in society that is the result of many years of growth and compromise. Humanity has seen this type of upheaval before, during the “famine” years of the Soviet Union when Stalin imposed collectivization as well as the Cultural Revolution inspired by Mao. In fact, it is difficult if not impossible to find any radical restructuring of society in human history that has produced a better society. It is an unfortunate truth that those type of disruptions come had a high cost of human suffering and pain.

Why then is humanity still plagued by “enlightened” groups who believe they have found a faster, surer path to nirvana? Their blind faith in their righteousness and lack of historical perspective seems to be a never-ending curse on humanity.

Check the link below for a short overview of the disaster in Sri Lanka and what we can learn from it.

https://www.dailyindependent.com/opinion/john-stossel-going-hungry/article_d07aa7b6-2ede-11ed-b130-13c01a03210c.html

The California Air Resource Board (an unelected regulatory body) is pushing for California to join the EU and Canada in only allowing EVs to be sold in the state by 2035. The state (like the EU and Canada) is unprepared for such a change over as it only has about one-third of the necessary charging stations, plus the electric grid is not able to manage hundreds of thousands of EVs all charging at the same time.  One of the suggestions is that EV owners should spend several thousands of dollars (on top of the already inflated EV prices) to install solar panel at their homes. At the same time, there is no industry in place to dispose of or recycle either old EV batteries millions of solar panels which are nearing their twenty-five-year life cycle.

Of course, powering all the EVs will require either additional nuclear generating plants, or a vast increase in fossil-based plants which will hardly insure the zero-emission goal for 2035. There are no plans, funding or clearing of environmental lawsuits from numerous special interest groups for an expansion of fossil or nuclear facilities so the practical feasibility of success by 2035 would require a crash program of funding and construction. There is no such talk to support the reality of sufficient supply except for the thirty billion in the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act which will have to spread over all fifty states. The Watts Bar Nuclear Plant #2 in Tennessee took forty years to build and two new plants in Georgia have seen their costs rise from fourteen to twenty-three billion ($14 billion to $23 billion).

The linked article points out that “the future is eclectic, not electric.”

https://www.city-journal.org/how-hybrids-can-beat-electric-vehicles-on-emissions

As much of the world is finding out, “green” energy is expensive. Electricity rates in Germany are 3-4 times higher than in the U.S., in California they are 2-3 times higher than in the rest of the U.S., the list goes on and on. Added to this is the fact that it is unreliable and even if all noble targets were reached, the world would still get 75% of it’s energy from fossil fuels.

But the numbers are even worse than we think, for the rates do not include the subsidies which we all pay for delivery for unreliable service. In 2017, the Department of Energy found that subsidies to the “green” sector were running ten times higher than to fossil fuels. This does not include the problem yet unsolved, of disposal of wind turbine blades (mostly buried in some remote location), recycling of solar panels and batteries which have outlived their efficiency, etc.

The promise of efficient, clean, and dependable “green” energy is a myth. The cost of “green” energy has not gone down, the cost of electric autos continues to climb, and we face the fact that lower- and middle-income families are subsidizing electric cars for the wealthier; this is a transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest. Robin Hood in reverse.

The article below has the nerve to include all the costs involved in going “green.”  The energy czar still flies on his private jet, not one auto in the President’s garage has gone electric but you are paying more for the privilege of going to work, buying food, and simply trying to make a better life. How long will this be allowed to go on?