Energy and humanism? Not at all. It is a one sided analysis which, using highly selective data argues on.behalf of the fossil fuel industry. It us profoundly anti-human as it encourages further climate degradation. Surprising. No.
So who is Robert Bryce?
He’s a Fellow at “The Institute For Energy Research - widely regarded as a front for the fossil fuel industry. And a senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute an “organization does not take a formal position on climate change science.”
“…..energy poverty is rampant and that the real challenge we face isn’t to use less energy. Instead, it’s to make energy more affordable and more abundant so that we can continue adapting to the weather (whatever it is) and help ensure that more people all over the world — particularly women and girls — can enjoy higher living standards.”
True but the quickest and cheapest way to provide electricity is with solar as it does not require the extension of the grid or massive new power stations.
“Clean-burning LPG could replace the wood, straw, dung, and charcoal that is now being used. That, in turn, would ease the indoor air pollution problem”
There is no such thing as clean burning gas. All gas fuels produce oxides of nitrogen which damage the respiratory system and trigger asthma. Again, gas requires more infrastructure than solar and has significant additional per unit costs.
“The groups pushing this anti-energy messaging are spending staggering sums of money to demonize hydrocarbons and push claims that we must only use alt-energy like wind and solar”
This would be hilarious if it was not so offensive. The fossil fuel industry has spent billions on disinformation, then add to that their political “donations”, the advertising budgets of fuel companies. This is orders of magnitude more than has been spent promoting renewables. Research the Koch brothers!
The only scalable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power. Anyone against fossil fuels, natural gas, AND nuclear power, is not be taken seriously. So-called alternative energy sources are ok in places, but it’s beyond ignorance to think that they can power an entire economy. Nor are they as “green” as their proponents pretend. Bad for consumers, who pay higher prices. Bad for national security, as we are reliant on hostile nations for the energy we don’t produce ourselves. And ironically, bad for the environment. Trying to mass scale the rare earth metals needed to electrify everything, for example, is asking for an environmental and human rights catastrophe. No, I prefer to live in the modern world where I don’t need to become a neo-pagan and pray for the sun to shine and the wind to blow in order to supply my energy needs. Oh, and the billions living in the third world would also like a few words with you.
So you are changing the subject? The article was trying to undermine renewables by drawing attention to the problems associated with not having electricity. No mention of that now. Nuclear power is the most expensive spurce of energy, ot takes the longest to come online and has the bulk of its costs up front. The SMRs proposed by its advocates are not yet in existence. How you then equate renewables with having to import energy (as fossil fuels ffs), is beyond me. Australia is setting up to EXPORT solar energy to Singapore. You need to look for better sources of information!
I was pointing out the futility of trying to power an entire society on renewables. Nuclear was presented as an alternative. Does Australia run entirely on solar or wind? No? How shocking!
Without the billions spent on disinformation by the fossil fuel profiteers we would probably be there by now. So exactly what is it that you disagree with in IPCC 6? Or are you just happy to leave a rapidly worsening climate to future generstions? Massive floods, heatwaves, wildfire, glaciers in retreat, massive ice loss at both poles. Do you really think scientists are making this up? Sorry mate but the wilfully ignorant are a waste of my time. I'll avoid your echo chamber in future.
I realize not everyone is on board with this, but maybe most of us can agree that we'll need more energy, not less as developing countries move up the economic ladder. There's the issue of supply and logistics to make it available. The answer at least has to partly depend on location, climate and politics of each country. In the end it's the price I pay for the energy i need, and then the energy to support my wants, that will drive the consumer. Currently this is being manipulated to make that "headline number" look better. It would be a great service to have a sticker system that breaks my bill down into what the total direct and hidden costs are. For oil and gas, it's the mess that's been left behind in communities dealing contaminated water and land that's unusable due to abandoned wells in addition to the actual pollution from hydrogen sulfide in the air. For wind and solar it's the impact on surrounding communities, animals, and the ability to use the land for other purposes. For nuclear the hidden but ever present risk of an accident. The list goes on. But if we can quantify "Source 1, 2, and 3" CO2 emissions, which are basically made up numbers using made up assumptions that aren't post audited, we can calculate the true costs of each form, and let us 'ratepayers' decide.
Since COVID the US has become energy self-sufficient, a net exporter. Not seeing any pats on the back for anyone on this one other than possibly the oil and gas industry and its investors, who are once again seeing their return on investment slide with over production.
I would like to put a hundred likes on this. This is the essence of what I'm already feeling, for a long time, about the "transition" and everything that is wrong with it (as it is currently done). Thank you Robert for capturing the most important aspects in a short, easily accessible piece.
Hi Robert, I wanted to watch the Juice video on You Tube but I get a message that "the uploader has not made it available in your country". I'm in Spain (although originally from Austin). Is that something within your power to change?
It seems ironic that most of the offensive cooking fuels are not fossil fuels, but might be considered "green" fuels and probably not used in urban settings. Electricity and natural gas possibly charcoal would be found in urban areas and propane probably would be too expensive. If there is sufficient water, an anaerobic digester could provide burnable methane for cooking purposes inexpensively from various organic wastes. Dr. Ann Wilkie professor at the University of Florida has demonstrated and discussed these systems. They can also be made in many sizes. Not sure if any downside effects outweigh the benefits, but large variations are used for sewage treatment and waste management for dairy farms.
Unfortunately, money is required for most of the systems, even the cheapest. How much of the $4+ billion has been actually used to institute solutions as opposed to talking about it. Kudos to those that do, shame on those that don't.
The smallest amount of electricity would be a God spend to the people he discussed. IMO, density of production and distribution would be difficult and who knows the lead time for huge projects? I saw an interesting clip by the man who invented 5 Hour Energy, where he had a small recumbent bike connected to a generator. His idea was to have able bodied persons peddle the device for about an hour. It would charge a battery pack that could easily run lights all night or small appliances. I don't know if he scaled it up. It seemed easily produced, non-polluting, easily deployed. Fairly simple way to provide at least a minimal amount of electricity for these impoverished areas.
Marvelous piece! Thank you as always for putting the issue in context, broadening people’s view of the issues, and providing clear facts around the choices that are being proffered by activists. If a group of people were running around the world advocating suicide for 3 billion people, it couldn’t possibly be tolerated, and yet today the climatism crowd is essentially doing that, and demoralizing generations of young people who get no reference or alternate views to counter what they hear. This article should be required reading for every high school freshman worldwide.
Energy and humanism? Not at all. It is a one sided analysis which, using highly selective data argues on.behalf of the fossil fuel industry. It us profoundly anti-human as it encourages further climate degradation. Surprising. No.
So who is Robert Bryce?
He’s a Fellow at “The Institute For Energy Research - widely regarded as a front for the fossil fuel industry. And a senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute an “organization does not take a formal position on climate change science.”
Unbiased analysis? Not.
Feel free to post any evidence that contradicts the facts presented in the post, rather than relying on lazy ad-hominem attacks.
“…..energy poverty is rampant and that the real challenge we face isn’t to use less energy. Instead, it’s to make energy more affordable and more abundant so that we can continue adapting to the weather (whatever it is) and help ensure that more people all over the world — particularly women and girls — can enjoy higher living standards.”
True but the quickest and cheapest way to provide electricity is with solar as it does not require the extension of the grid or massive new power stations.
“Clean-burning LPG could replace the wood, straw, dung, and charcoal that is now being used. That, in turn, would ease the indoor air pollution problem”
There is no such thing as clean burning gas. All gas fuels produce oxides of nitrogen which damage the respiratory system and trigger asthma. Again, gas requires more infrastructure than solar and has significant additional per unit costs.
“The groups pushing this anti-energy messaging are spending staggering sums of money to demonize hydrocarbons and push claims that we must only use alt-energy like wind and solar”
This would be hilarious if it was not so offensive. The fossil fuel industry has spent billions on disinformation, then add to that their political “donations”, the advertising budgets of fuel companies. This is orders of magnitude more than has been spent promoting renewables. Research the Koch brothers!
The only scalable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power. Anyone against fossil fuels, natural gas, AND nuclear power, is not be taken seriously. So-called alternative energy sources are ok in places, but it’s beyond ignorance to think that they can power an entire economy. Nor are they as “green” as their proponents pretend. Bad for consumers, who pay higher prices. Bad for national security, as we are reliant on hostile nations for the energy we don’t produce ourselves. And ironically, bad for the environment. Trying to mass scale the rare earth metals needed to electrify everything, for example, is asking for an environmental and human rights catastrophe. No, I prefer to live in the modern world where I don’t need to become a neo-pagan and pray for the sun to shine and the wind to blow in order to supply my energy needs. Oh, and the billions living in the third world would also like a few words with you.
So you are changing the subject? The article was trying to undermine renewables by drawing attention to the problems associated with not having electricity. No mention of that now. Nuclear power is the most expensive spurce of energy, ot takes the longest to come online and has the bulk of its costs up front. The SMRs proposed by its advocates are not yet in existence. How you then equate renewables with having to import energy (as fossil fuels ffs), is beyond me. Australia is setting up to EXPORT solar energy to Singapore. You need to look for better sources of information!
I was pointing out the futility of trying to power an entire society on renewables. Nuclear was presented as an alternative. Does Australia run entirely on solar or wind? No? How shocking!
Without the billions spent on disinformation by the fossil fuel profiteers we would probably be there by now. So exactly what is it that you disagree with in IPCC 6? Or are you just happy to leave a rapidly worsening climate to future generstions? Massive floods, heatwaves, wildfire, glaciers in retreat, massive ice loss at both poles. Do you really think scientists are making this up? Sorry mate but the wilfully ignorant are a waste of my time. I'll avoid your echo chamber in future.
I realize not everyone is on board with this, but maybe most of us can agree that we'll need more energy, not less as developing countries move up the economic ladder. There's the issue of supply and logistics to make it available. The answer at least has to partly depend on location, climate and politics of each country. In the end it's the price I pay for the energy i need, and then the energy to support my wants, that will drive the consumer. Currently this is being manipulated to make that "headline number" look better. It would be a great service to have a sticker system that breaks my bill down into what the total direct and hidden costs are. For oil and gas, it's the mess that's been left behind in communities dealing contaminated water and land that's unusable due to abandoned wells in addition to the actual pollution from hydrogen sulfide in the air. For wind and solar it's the impact on surrounding communities, animals, and the ability to use the land for other purposes. For nuclear the hidden but ever present risk of an accident. The list goes on. But if we can quantify "Source 1, 2, and 3" CO2 emissions, which are basically made up numbers using made up assumptions that aren't post audited, we can calculate the true costs of each form, and let us 'ratepayers' decide.
Since COVID the US has become energy self-sufficient, a net exporter. Not seeing any pats on the back for anyone on this one other than possibly the oil and gas industry and its investors, who are once again seeing their return on investment slide with over production.
Well done. Keep up the good work.
Women and girls need this message to be spread to the developed world to save the planet.
I would like to put a hundred likes on this. This is the essence of what I'm already feeling, for a long time, about the "transition" and everything that is wrong with it (as it is currently done). Thank you Robert for capturing the most important aspects in a short, easily accessible piece.
Hi Robert, I wanted to watch the Juice video on You Tube but I get a message that "the uploader has not made it available in your country". I'm in Spain (although originally from Austin). Is that something within your power to change?
It seems ironic that most of the offensive cooking fuels are not fossil fuels, but might be considered "green" fuels and probably not used in urban settings. Electricity and natural gas possibly charcoal would be found in urban areas and propane probably would be too expensive. If there is sufficient water, an anaerobic digester could provide burnable methane for cooking purposes inexpensively from various organic wastes. Dr. Ann Wilkie professor at the University of Florida has demonstrated and discussed these systems. They can also be made in many sizes. Not sure if any downside effects outweigh the benefits, but large variations are used for sewage treatment and waste management for dairy farms.
Unfortunately, money is required for most of the systems, even the cheapest. How much of the $4+ billion has been actually used to institute solutions as opposed to talking about it. Kudos to those that do, shame on those that don't.
Hypocrisy, Irony, and Every Other Negative Human Trait, example of:
Climate cultists asserting humanity needs to quit using hydrocarbons yet refusing to do so themselves.
Nicely written.
Another comparison I like. More die each YEAR from not having clean cooking fuels than have died from ALL natural disasters combined in this CENTURY.
The smallest amount of electricity would be a God spend to the people he discussed. IMO, density of production and distribution would be difficult and who knows the lead time for huge projects? I saw an interesting clip by the man who invented 5 Hour Energy, where he had a small recumbent bike connected to a generator. His idea was to have able bodied persons peddle the device for about an hour. It would charge a battery pack that could easily run lights all night or small appliances. I don't know if he scaled it up. It seemed easily produced, non-polluting, easily deployed. Fairly simple way to provide at least a minimal amount of electricity for these impoverished areas.
Democratic party of freedom wants CAGW denial to be a crime (Walz).
Real criminals are the bellicose, screeching, fearmongers and their bogus GHE.
Believe = religion
Think = opinion
Know = science
Here’s what I know.
You??
Water vapor, clouds, ice, snow create 30% albedo which makes the Earth cooler not warmer.
W/o GHE there is no water and Earth goes lunarific, a barren rock ball, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark refuting a warming GHE.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic and ubiquitous clones don’t balance plus violate LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render a surface black body and it’s “extra” upwelling GHE energy impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Outstanding! Thank you for putting this material together and sharing it.
As always, a reliable, rational, sane exposition based on facts, not on pearl-clutching and feckless virtue signaling..
Perhaps you should start selling "N2N" T-shirts. That slogan says it all
Marvelous piece! Thank you as always for putting the issue in context, broadening people’s view of the issues, and providing clear facts around the choices that are being proffered by activists. If a group of people were running around the world advocating suicide for 3 billion people, it couldn’t possibly be tolerated, and yet today the climatism crowd is essentially doing that, and demoralizing generations of young people who get no reference or alternate views to counter what they hear. This article should be required reading for every high school freshman worldwide.
Excellent!
But I was told that eating bugs stops the weather!