The assumption in the article seems to be that there is no downside to use of fossil fuels. But then at the end it talks about nuclear energy. There is no way that nuclear energy can *ever* compete with fossil energy as long as we have adequate supplies. If it could, it would have displaced coal and gas for electric power production decades ago.

So what's the point?

Expand full comment

Biden spending 4.1 trillion dollars, isn’t a responsible investment! If it’s a viable investment, then private Companies would be on it! And development would be the biggest thing since sliced bread! But it’s the government trying to build this craziness and waste is rampant!

Expand full comment

Just as true today, Robert.

Expand full comment

Great piece!

Take everything the environmentalists say and carry it to the furthest extreme -- because that's where it was always going.

They aren't looking at renewable energy -- they're going for NO ENERGY. The people at the top of these "movements" are trying to enact a Hunger Games type scenario. That's literally where this is headed.

I'm old enough to remember when natural gas was considered clean. But now it's going to kill us all. Faster than the cholesterol in eggs.

Let me give you another example. Remember how there was a hole in the ozone layer, caused my carbon monoxide? What was the correction? Catalytic converters. They took care of the problem. They converted carbon monoxide into CO2 and water.

However; solutions are NOT allowed. Now CO2 is bad, and we've moved on from carbon monoxide. Because it was NEVER about the environment -- it was always about control.

The entire environmental movement in all its forms is and always has been about control. Once you understand that, all of these ridiculous ideas make sense.

These people cannot be reasoned with, because they want power. That's why "the science" is always changing. Not because it's legitimate, but because it's not science -- it's propaganda. Nuclear will never be an option, because nuclear will work. Nuclear *is* the solution, but solutions are not allowed.

Don't give an inch people! They're never going to come up with a "solution" that benefits society. They'll always come to a solution that gives them greater control over the lives of individuals.

Expand full comment
Jan 9·edited Jan 9

OGRE, Please reconsider painting all environmentalists / conservationists with the same brush. As a '60s vintage Calif tree-hugger I promote nuclear as the solution to the increased energy demands using less. Yep, less resource degradation (ecosystems and elements) to produce more energy = nuclear. If only we old school environmentalists had that control. Most want to be like Marie, see


Expand full comment

I'm not attempting to lump *literally* everyone together.

I'm speaking more specifically to those who are "heading" the environmental movement right now. Not those people from the past, who were actually concerned with the environment. For more than 25 years, Greenpeace and every other large environmentalist movement has been hijacked by leftists -- those leftists are NOT concerned with the environment.

Expand full comment

Hello Robert I was listening to you today on Peterson's broadcast and you were talking about Vietnam. Gas prices do jump around a little bit here but they have stayed steady since all this destroying of our energy Independence in America, about $2.35 a gallon right now I have been living in Vietnam off and on for 14 years I am also from Texas and lived there part-time but not for the last year and a half that things have gotten so expensive in America, I have a Vietnamese wife and feel so lucky that I can live here so inexpensive and it is due to low energy prices here about 13 cents a kilowatt for electricity , there's no inflation here the government will not allow it the country would fall apart too many poor people but there are a lot of wealthier middle class within the last 10 years if inflation started happening here the country would fall apart through protest from the much larger poor class their GDP is 5.4 this country is doing very well and little to no crime very safe I enjoyed watching your podcast with Peterson I think that President Trump should have you within his cabinet somewhere and I will write him and tell him my thoughts good luck 🤞 on trying to convince people that energy Independence is in our best is interest

Expand full comment

In the case of the US since 2005, fossil fuel consumption has declined by about 5 quadrillion btu/year while renewable consumption has increased by 7 quadrillion btu/year, according to EIA. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T01.01#/?f=M&start=199702&end=202303&charted=13-11

This is the opposite of the picture that your painting in this article, is it not?

Expand full comment

It should come as no surprise because all of the renewables involved with the transition are being installed by people in conventional vehicles that run on fossil fuels...gasoline and renewable biofuels. There is no viable alternative when it comes to modern transportation. What this means is more oil, not less. Until the energy transition is completed, if it ever Is.

Expand full comment

"In 2022, the U.S. had the world’s third-largest increase in CO2 emissions, 57 gigatons. (U.S. emissions last year totaled 4,826 Gt.) The U.S. followed only Indonesia (172 Gt) and India (131 Gt) in that category. China’s emissions fell slightly, by 0.1% or 13 Gt, in 2022. That said, China’s emissions are, by far, the biggest in the world, at 10,550 Gt. "

That seems a little high. Did you mean "megatons?"

Expand full comment

Good catch. Thanks, Scott.

My mistake. I have corrected it.

Expand full comment

No problem. Glad I could help.

Expand full comment

It’s interesting that in 2004 the world population was 6.5 Billion and used 384 EJ, by 2022 the world population increased to 8.0 Billion (23% increase) and used 494 EJ (28.6% increase). Primary energy usage per capita increased by 4%. The world population is projected to increase to 9.0 Billion by 2032. Any plan to replace hydrocarbons as a primary energy source with wind & solar will cause massive reduction in living standards (best case) and massive reduction in population (worse case) - and remember that a reduction in population could include you.

Expand full comment

Also remember that any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions will take none of the CO2 we have already added out of the atmosphere to lower the Earth's temperature. All that does is leave carbon in the ground when we might need it if the planet starts cooling again.

Expand full comment

We have successfully transitioned from hydrocarbons to marginally fewer hydrocarbons.

Expand full comment

Spot on... again. The numbers are sobering and saddening at the same time. Corruption always reigns supreme.

Expand full comment

Yes, the world would be a different place if we had invested the $4.1T for solar/wind renewable energy into advanced nuclear reactor Gen4+. I cannot understand the political and bureaucratic nonsense that is obviously politically motivated that go into solar/wind development. Follow the money-- obviously being funded by well-heeled elites and their lobbyists.

Expand full comment

Here's one example of a well-heeled elite who admitted circa 2014 he is on the gravy train at taxpayer expense. CGNP used this quote near the conclusion to their June 29, 2023 filing at https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M512/K707/512707725.PDF supporting extended Diablo Canyon Power Plant operations before the California Public Utilities Commission. Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett explained the rationale for solar and wind generation in 2014:

"For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."

"Big Wind's Bogus Subsidies - Giving tax credits to the wind energy industry is a waste of time and money."

By Nancy Pfotenhauer, Contributor |May 12, 2014, at 2:30 p.m US News & World Report




This 2010 example supports why Amory Lovins continues to receive multi-million dollar donations from parties he characterized as ...friends of renewable power... for his Colorado nonprofit, the Rocky Mountain Institute. (RMI)


HOW LESS BECAME MORE… Wind, Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market

77-page Bentek Report date: 04 16 10.

Wind energy promises a clean, renewable resource that uses no fossil fuel and generates zero emissions. Careful examination of the data suggests that the numbers do not add up as expected.

The “must take” provisions of Colorado’s Renewable Portfolio Standard require that other sources of generation, such as coal plants, must be “cycled” to accommodate wind power. This cycling makes coal generating units operate much less efficiently - so inefficiently, that these units produce significantly greater emissions (and burn more coal - GAN.) This study reviews the data that supports this conclusion, outlines mitigation measures which can be used to realize the full potential of wind generation, and provides recommendations for policy makers

Expand full comment

Alternative Energy will work only when the elites in the WEF achieve their goals of eliminating 90% of the world's population and create their personal Utopia.

Expand full comment

cognitive dissonance is difficult to overcome with facts, evidence and critical thinking.

bob weissberg

Expand full comment