Repost from thomas buckley’s accessories
Thanks to the California Globe for running this. You can access the website at: https://californiaglobe.com/
Energy has to come from somewhere.
This may come as a shock to some, but if one plans to remove fossil fuels from the production equation, the ability to generate that energy must be replaced.
But there’s a problem – a big problem. With the green energy movement avoiding the use of clean natural gas, nuclear and hydro and identifying only wind, solar, wave and geothermal as renewable – and therefore the only acceptable alternatives. political recognition for oil and coal – the cost of energy has skyrocketed, when it is available at all – https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220922005921/en/New-Report-Shows-How-High-Retail-Electricity-Prices-Are-Slowing-California%E2%80%99s-Progress-Towards- An-Equality-Clean-Energy-Future and https://californiaglobe.com/articles/california-backlash-over-telling-californians-not-to-charge-electrical-vehicles-during-heatwave/ .
While California may be the tip of the spear, that spear is now piercing the hearts of millions of bank accounts around the globe – https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gas-is-going-up-but-this-is-how-inflation-really-hurts-older-americans-11649873119 and https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-heating-oil-islanders-react-1.6616664.
This raises a very simple question – why is society robbing her to pay Gaia?
The leaders of the green energy movement don’t seem too short of a brain to understand that the technology they say will help alleviate the problem simply doesn’t exist – nor will it soon.
Globally, the green movement has caused quite predictable suffering in millions of people. From energy to agriculture –– for shipping to, well, everything.
So why, knowing the impossibility of the future and the catastrophes of the present, has the movement attracted so many followers in government, finance, media and social spheres? ?
The answer is quite simple – power. This movement is more about justifying the continued existence of officials, think tanks, NGOs, professorships, experts and others who realize that it’s really comfortable. roof when becoming part of the gravy is unsurpassable and – so far – unstoppable training rather than about “environment”.
Of course, if a person is actually a Luddite less hypocritical – when the point of the policy stance is to literally go back in time to civilization, then the removal of productive capacity not only meaning which is in fact an important aspect of effort. Because that would literally kill billions of people (the math is simple: less food + less warmth + less transportation + less knowledge + less everything else) = fewer people) so it is not “first” in most green public relations messages.
Neither is the sociopolitical impact at the same time – the fewer people you have in the group, the easier it is to control the group – nor is the actual environmental devastation inevitable – Vermont has plenty of fossil fuels, for example. forest cover was 20%, now it’s about 80 percent – often mentioned, for obvious reasons.
Most green-apocs do not openly endorse such radical notions but insist that the energy needed to power the modern world can be found if we are diligent enough. more in using it and only pay a little more. Wind, solar, geothermal, wave capture, etc., can be used to replace fossil fuels. It should be noted, however, that two forms of energy production that don’t produce an extra milligram of carbon – nuclear and hydroelectricity – tend not to be included in the list of alternatives because hydropower means dams and dams are bad. and nuclear means radioactive waste and the inevitable disasters associated with technology.
As for natural gas – the cleanest, to the point of not being considered a fossil fuel – is that well stated because, um, it comes from the ground? I guess?
One “catch-up” trend following the rise of green energy is the worship of electricity. From hand dryers in toilets (even before this whole thing ceased to exist) supposedly good for the environment to cars to home appliances (no more household gas hookups allowed in California) and New York City in a few years, and if you don’t live there, wait, the “be very scared” foundation is laid: https://slate.com/technology/2022/10/gas-stoves-brain-development-air-quality.html ), using only electricity has achieved the state of cult cult. Just plug something in and you never have to worry and – Bonus! – you are considered a better person than others.
This essential stealth of electricity is part of its green appeal. When using other fuels, it’s easy for users to notice – they can see the gas burning in a blue flame on the stove, and every time they refill the tank, they vaguely remember from high school that gas from dinosaurs that have been smashed. a long time ago and now it’s what your car eats.
In other words, fossil fuels have a certain remarkable physical property, while electricity is simply on/off and paying the bill once a month. It is this widespread disconnection that creates a psychological shield of simple presence around electricity, making it virtually immune to “upstream” concerns and questions about electricity. being able to use more – a lot – much more.
Meaning, until you can’t pay your bills or lose power because it turns out electricity isn’t a magical force created for free from the universal aether, but an actual thing that must be created by people and – regardless of form – that act of creativity both impacts the environment and comes at a cost for – https://www.kornferry.com/content/dam/kornferry-v2/pdf/briefings/pp16-17_Briefings54_Voices_Constable.pdf .
Don’t like oil drilling at your home? Okay, get it from somewhere else. Have you had a positive impact – that’s the whole point of the effort – on the global environment? Absolutely not – pollution doesn’t happen near you where you can see it. Running everything on batteries because oil and gas is evil? Okay. Better for the environment and for everyone in the world? No – the mining activities involved in this process alone are brutal, for both the land and the people involved because labor laws and environmental assurance aren’t terribly high on the “to-do” list. do” of government-owned Chinese multinationals currently tearing up the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In the end, the green energy fad does not save the environment, cannot hope to provide enough electricity to meet current demand let alone the planned explosive growth, and especially is crushing the economy, fueling international conflict, and obviously making people poorer.
I think I’ll go with her on this trip.
Related
