Costs of Regulating (Climate)

On the road to zero emissions.

Will green technology save the planet? Hardly. (see here) ‘Green energy’ produces less power, less reliably, and more expensively. That makes it backward. (click here for more)

The math is nonsense. (click here for more) Also: Comparing Renewables Versus Fossil Fuels. The math speaks for itself. For one example in New York go here.

Climate regulation would be unacceptably costly. "So, in order to save the planet... Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (click here for more) That would make it political suicide and so require unprecedented police powers to impose.

Imagine a world without cheap energy. No fossil fuel. No cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, machinery, farm tractors! " It might sound romantic to go back to the style and standard of living that people had in the 1860’s ...the global warming catastrophe theory, we are told, requires that we end all fossil fuel emissions. Using the U.S. study as a guide would therefore mean that people should either stop or cut back heavily on the production and use of pharmaceuticals, restaurant meals, use of drugs and physician services, use of premade meals and beverages, grain and meat products, air travel, and household cleaners." (see here) Or, see how to advise a teenage daughter on 'climate change'. The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, showed the way when he went 'off the grid'. He built himself a small cabin where he lived in near-total isolation, hunting rabbits, growing vegetables and spending much of his time reading. While living this remote, survivalist lifestyle, Kaczynski developed his own anti-government and anti-technology philosophy. How many people would be willing to follow that example?

"Current science estimates that at a population of 1.5 to 2 billion people, the planet can guarantee ‘the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life’ to every person ." (See here for more) So we have 6 billion too many. Who wants to be eliminated for The Public Interest?

What would life be like without fossil fuels such as gas and oil?

A life without fossil fuels is impossible today.

Idiotic Environmental Predictions

"There Is No Climate Emergency": Scientists Call For Reasoned Debate

With those five simple words, a global network of scientists and professionals attempted to inject reasonableness and decorum into what should be a robust discussion about a complex scientific and public policy issue, but has instead degenerated into an ever more intense mud-slinging contest over the years. 

People on one side of the argument dismiss their opponents as wild-eyed socialists attempting to leverage public fear and ignorance to further their political agenda. On the opposite side, people dismiss those who disagree with their supposedly settled scientific conclusions as nothing more than knowing shills or ignorant dupes of evil energy interests. 

In between those extremes that are so popular with armies of public relations professionals, who shape the messages of public interest groups and professional politicians to maximum effect, are a not-so-quiet silent majority of scientists and professionals who take a more measured, reasoned view of the science when considering the supposed climate emergency some say we’re facing. 

A group of 500-some scientists and professionals signed on to the “European Climate Declaration” that was released last week. This simple, short, and understandable statement proposed how analysis of any public policy issue involving complex science should be approached from a reasoned, fact-based perspective. " (more here)

The Genocidal Roots Of The Green New Deal: Limits To Growth & The Unchaining of Prometheus

The planet now has about 7.5 billion people. How Many People Must Die To Fix The Planet?
“the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced.”

"11,000 Experts Propose Final Solution To Global Warming: Just Kill Billions Of People" (more here)

" ...think of the situation as being analogous to researchers deciding that it would be helpful or more efficient if humans could change their diets to 100% grass in the next 20 years."  (more here)

Economists: Greta Thunberg's Ideal World Would Result In A "Human Tragedy Of Disastrous Proportions” (more here)

"Germany has already spent $180 billion on its switch to renewables, only to find it doesn’t work." (more here)

"Without that cheap oil, growth is impossible, and without growth, crackup is inevitable." (more here)

"Von Greyerz: The Problem Is The Economy, Stupid! Not The Climate
Instead of worrying about global warming, which we humans cannot effect, we should instead issue a GLOBAL WARNING about the coming economic cataclysm so that the world can be prepared for the extremely serious problems that will hit us all in the next few years." (more here)

The “Net Zero” Agenda Has Devastating Consequences… Here’s What You Need To Know.

Most people do want to preserve nature and minimize our climate impact – but not “at the expense of their children going cold or hungry.” (see here for more)

Currently wind and solar are a tiny part of total energy source. (click here to enlarge image)

A projection (see here) shows wind and solar expected to be even smaller.

But assume the program goes forward. 4,000 five megawatt turbines could meet New York City’s average annual electric consumption. Also necessary transmission as well as battery infrastructur to store power is needed. Alternatively, roughly 11 million solar panels need to be installed. It will be more in practise because some days have much higher consumption than average. Electrifying more industry, transportation and residential uses requires more wind turbines/solar panels. Then the current fossil fuel generators are operated and maintained for periods of peak demand or lack of wind or sun.

We can’t afford to chart a course that will take us away from what we know works without assurance that the “substitute” (renewable energy sources) will work as promised. (Click here.)

Conclusion

"Given the math, human tendencies, and the issues pertaining to time, scale and cost, the current green energy movement currently is little more than hot air. It’s just not going to happen in time." (more here)

Regulating to 'Save the Planet' will be resisted by those who want to save themselves from the Regulators. For example, a doubling of the price of gasoline from almost nothing to practically nothing enraged people in Chile and led to rioting in the capital, Santiago.In France the Yellow Vest demonstrations started with a small fuel tax increase presumably to fund climate regulation. Imagine what would happen with more serious regulatory edicts.

Return to Table of Content