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

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

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

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

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

The gov’t doesn’t need to spend anything to promote nuclear power. Just stop subsidizing wind and solar so nuclear can compete. Loan guarantees would help, and the administration might jawbone federal judges not to grant lawsuits brought by anti nuclear activists. And a president could appoint real scientists to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission who could speed construction along and prevent costly delays. Nuclear power is as good investment absent subsidies that make wind and solar so lucrative for those feeding at the federal trough.

Expand full comment
Jul 2·edited Jul 3

Energy Density and Why We Need Nuclear Now:

I think most Energy Experts would agree that the energy density of fuels is an important concept and selection criteria.

Below is a sampling:

Li batteries: 0.5 MJ/kg

Wood: 17.1 MJ/kg

Diesel/petrol/natural gas : 45-47 MJ/kg

Nuclear, E=mc^2, U-235, : 79,390,000 MJ/kg or 7.9 x 10^7 MJ/kg

One can easily see that nuclear has the highest energy density of any fuel.

Given that the greatest source of GHGs is derived from electricity generation, not cars, it makes more sense to "burn" uranium instead of fossil to drive industry, and keep people warm, etc.

The hydrocarbons we save can be used for materials and drugs for example.

Expand full comment

Enormous amounts of DEAD Capital chasing a problem that does not exist, to satisfy a narrative for votes. Our children have and are being programmed, to believe man is guilty of climate change. The only thing driving climate change is the Sun. In addition, man’s arrogance, believing that he can change climate, is naive. This is only about votes and government power. This will only stop, when the capital drys up. Governments are destroying their tax base’ around the world, undermining economic stability, for VOTES and POWER.

Expand full comment