The wets debcacle Sent: July 18, 2022 9:15 AM
Subject: WSJ Article summarizes the impact of sloppy policy in dealing with climate change.
Some of you do not believe climate change is taking place. Some of you believe it is taking place but that mankind’s role in that process is limited. And many believe that there is climate change taking place, and that mankind has a good deal to do with it, and therefore that steps are required to deal with mankind’s role. And then there is the fourth group that is unsure, and lack the time and expertise to know anything for sure… (with apologies to the first three groups as each will find reasons to dislike what is said below)….
Regardless of which you believe to be true, it is likely accurate to suggest that we are not going to see a change in the overall impact of the climate change movement in its efforts to dramatically reduce the use of fossil fuels. It is also true and now evident that the approach taken to deal with the perception that mankind is generating climate change outcomes that are likely to be devastating to a large percentage of the world’s population is entirely flawed. This article summarizes the effects of those flaws to date, and points to a change in approach which will hopefully correct the process in order to reduce the cost of the proposed changes.
Simply put, the idea has always been to REPLACE the burning of fossil fuels with renewable resources. Those renewables have to date been primarily wind and solar power. However, the wholesale “rush to the exits” in regards to fossil fuel use, BEFORE the full utility of those fossil fuels has been replaced with renewables of one sort or another, has been one of the dumbest outcomes of any “movement” in decades. To use an analogy I have used before…. its as if we are doing an organ transplant, have opened up the patient, removed the problematic organ, but dont have the replacement ready as yet. So the patient dies….
Clearly we need to keep the conversation open regarding the evidence of climate change, as well as the source of climate change. But at the same time, if we are going to move to replace fossil fuels to reduce emissions, we must do so efficiently. To date governments have not done that. In fact, the collective approaches have been idiotic because they have been based on an obsession with eliminating, rather than the need to replace…
Replacing burning of coal with that of natural gas will help. So will a resurgence of the use of nuclear power. These steps are now finally being taken, although they will take time to implement. And new inventions will continually improve the situation and many of them are under development, with lots of great potential.
But in the interim, we have to be very careful not to reduce the availability of fossil fuels until they are fully replaceable. And we need to take into account that overall energy use is growing along with economic growth- an average of 4-5% per year worldwide. So if we objective is to reduce the use of fossil fuels, we need to produce enough energy from alternative sources to not only reduce the allocation of fossil fuels but also cover the requirements of growth.
And until we have replacements which can be counted on to be available during the most pressing times- ie- at peak- we have to maintain our exploration and development of fossil fuel resources, and allow the building of pipelines, or we will bring our world economy to a standstill, with potentially far worse repercussions than those suggested by the climate change movement.
This WSJ labelled “debacle” has been self-evident for some time. It is good to see it illuminated properly for a change…
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wests-climate-policy-debacle-global-warming-energy-putin-russia-fossil-fuel-power-summer-heat-11658084481