On the 2018 Summer Solstice, a climate witch predicted humanity’s doom if “we” did not stop using fossil fuels in the next five years. June 21st, 2024, has come and gone, and while we may still be doomed six years later, it is not because of fossil fuels. The people trying to force us off them are more likely to end us.
In related news, Joseph R. Biden’s 2020 platform for President included a plank ending fossil fuel use.
So, how are those plans working out?
The End is Near
Thunberg is her own puppet these days, having aged out, but, like her ilk, regardless of age, is not held accountable for hyperbolic or bombastic prognostications that never come to pass.
Teenage Greta quoted a professor of atmospheric chemistry at Harvard. James Anderson claimed that by 2022, there would be no permanent ice caps, which would have catastrophic consequences. He said there was zero chance this would not happen and would be bad for humanity.
Yawn.
Anderson was the latest in a long line of thieves and liars (often funded by federal grants) who predicted the same thing and got it wrong. It was wrong in more ways than whether there was ice at the poles. Polar Sea Ice (much like the atmospheric concentrations of CO2) has nothing to do with sea level or life on Earth, and there is ample evidence for both, but we’re not going there today because we have a much bigger problem.
Biden said he’d end fossil fuels. Greta said they’d end us. So, how is that working out?
We’re Still Here
The only earth-shattering incidents since Thunberg’s Twitter sandwich board prediction were political: the 2020 election, everything that followed, Fauci’s China virus, and the more damaging response to it. Ironically, it is all man-made, but it has no more to do with fossil fuels than the production of EVs. None are possible without them. And the proof is in the pudding.
Robert Bryce is an excellent source for data and graphs on the state of energy, especially the transition. From 2004 to 2022, for example, 4.1 trillion was spent on wind and solar. What did we get for that (feel free to tack on the added cost of the electricity it generates)? Wind and solar account for 5% of total generation. In the same span of years, energy from hydrocarbons grew 3.4 times faster.
To make matters worse, from 2022 to 2023, also from Bryce,
Biden has, in effect, increased reliance on fossil fuels because the dirty little secret is that nothing about the so-called green transition is possible without them. And that begs at least one question. All of this new stuff has a shelf-life.
Assuming they survive long enough, EVs need their batteries replaced, followed by the vehicles themselves. A very liberal projection is every ten years, while reality suggests it could be half that.
Wind and solar farms don’t last the 25 years advertised; some don’t last five. But even if they did, with what and how would we replace aging and damaged capacity?
Even the most basic demands of modernity cannot be met without fossil fuels, so there is no human-habitable world without them, which suggests other motives for the alleged (impossible) transition—of which there are many, all political. But even that need not matter to the street. Every day, people ought to be able to grasp the matter with both hands.
Even if some energy-inspired man-made doom is in our future, the path these climate elites have chosen for us is a dead end. It can’t be impossible without the thing it claims to replace.
You’d also be right to ask why since you’ve already given so much—if the doom, as predicted, is true, why isn’t the focus directed elsewhere?
