We cannot live (well) without natural gas, and I believe that CO2 emissions has been a smoke screen to transfer the wealth we (the regular people) have accumulated in the West to the few who simply don't seem to ever have enough.
Ed, you are right, it is a plan to destabilize and destroy our society and it seems our politicians have a sad Malthusian streak to play along with the game, or they are just nitwits. Either way we are loosing for now, but I have hope for the sensible folks like you who are out there spreading the message!
We certainly cannot live with just nuclear and renewables. So what type of grid do these people have in mind, if a mind they have at all?
We could live with just nuclear. Renewables are no significance with or without. Mars civilization will be 100% nuclear. Should be no problem. The real significant point is the Overlords don't want us to have nuclear, just wind/solar. That tells you how much they REALLY care about CO2 emissions. Just another invented crisis to impose tyranny and central control on the peoples of the World. Like their Covid Plandemic.
some of the early COP meetings called for Western countries to pay developing countries trillions to help them manage climate change - that didn't go very well but the theme is still there - just with smaller numbers as stated by Kerry - also a former head of the UNIPCC publicly stated that the real foal of environmentalism is the destruction of capitalism - those are the key objectives of COP
As irritating as it was I stuck through it thinking I should listen to what's going on in the main stream media.
As one might expect it was full of the usual platitudes and just plain lies that one usually hears. Ali Zaidi, White House National Climate Advisor, did a particularly thorough job of presenting the liturgy. He actually has a pretty good speaking voice, which is a shame, since he might convince some people that he's honest and/or knows what he's blathering about.
Then later there was a segment about COP28 President Sultan al-Jaber saying that there's no science behind phasing out fossil fuels. (May have been after "1A" in the hourly news.) Which is true, yet he's catching a huge bag of grief about it.
The only thing missing is shouts of, "Heresy!" and pitchforks.
Jeff, I listened to as much of the NPR piece that I could, and it is typical of the lies that makeup their programs as you say. Thanks for you comments, Jeff. Ed
I have a Progress-based energy proposal that I think is better than Bryce's N2N proposal (though similar in spirit). You might be interested in taking a look:
I agree but hydro is limited by geography. For example, Texas has very little hydro because there are not any major rivers and most of the state is relatively flat. In addition, the environmentalists have turned against hydro and now want to demolish existing dams. Recent reports say that Biden supports demolishing the Snake River damn even though it generates electricity for millions of people. Thanks for your comments, MIchael. Ed
All energy sources are seriously constrained by geography. Hydro is an excellent example of a constrained energy source. It is great for Washington state and Norway, but very limited in most regions.
These geographical constraints mean that each region has to choose a different blend of energy sources. For Texas, natural gas is a total no-brainer because of the vast gas fields within their borders.
Fortunately, fossil fuels and nuclear are easily transported and/or stored, so they are less constrained by geography.
No, I think that it is very important for people to realize that there are viable alternatives to Green energy policies. Green energy policies are not only bad for the economy, but they will not even achieve their own stated objectives.
A big part of the reason why many people support Green energy policies is because they believe there is no other alternatives to climate catastrophe.
More then even the transfer of wealth from the West to developing nations the whole basis of the transition delusion stems from the hatred of the global left to multinational--particularly US--oil companies dating back over 50 years. Rising CO2 and the supposed threat it poses to humanity provides the perfect excuse to garner support among the voting public to finally put the boot in and finish them off once and for all...
The classic case of a certain kind of "democracy." Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.
Great analogy, Meredith. Thanks! Ed
We cannot live (well) without natural gas, and I believe that CO2 emissions has been a smoke screen to transfer the wealth we (the regular people) have accumulated in the West to the few who simply don't seem to ever have enough.
Ed, you are right, it is a plan to destabilize and destroy our society and it seems our politicians have a sad Malthusian streak to play along with the game, or they are just nitwits. Either way we are loosing for now, but I have hope for the sensible folks like you who are out there spreading the message!
We certainly cannot live with just nuclear and renewables. So what type of grid do these people have in mind, if a mind they have at all?
We could live with just nuclear. Renewables are no significance with or without. Mars civilization will be 100% nuclear. Should be no problem. The real significant point is the Overlords don't want us to have nuclear, just wind/solar. That tells you how much they REALLY care about CO2 emissions. Just another invented crisis to impose tyranny and central control on the peoples of the World. Like their Covid Plandemic.
some of the early COP meetings called for Western countries to pay developing countries trillions to help them manage climate change - that didn't go very well but the theme is still there - just with smaller numbers as stated by Kerry - also a former head of the UNIPCC publicly stated that the real foal of environmentalism is the destruction of capitalism - those are the key objectives of COP
I had the misfortune to listen to this (NPR's 1A program, 2023, 12, 04) today: https://the1a.org/segments/the-latest-from-cop28/
As irritating as it was I stuck through it thinking I should listen to what's going on in the main stream media.
As one might expect it was full of the usual platitudes and just plain lies that one usually hears. Ali Zaidi, White House National Climate Advisor, did a particularly thorough job of presenting the liturgy. He actually has a pretty good speaking voice, which is a shame, since he might convince some people that he's honest and/or knows what he's blathering about.
Then later there was a segment about COP28 President Sultan al-Jaber saying that there's no science behind phasing out fossil fuels. (May have been after "1A" in the hourly news.) Which is true, yet he's catching a huge bag of grief about it.
The only thing missing is shouts of, "Heresy!" and pitchforks.
Jeff, I listened to as much of the NPR piece that I could, and it is typical of the lies that makeup their programs as you say. Thanks for you comments, Jeff. Ed
I have a Progress-based energy proposal that I think is better than Bryce's N2N proposal (though similar in spirit). You might be interested in taking a look:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/we-need-abundant-affordable-and-secure
I agree but hydro is limited by geography. For example, Texas has very little hydro because there are not any major rivers and most of the state is relatively flat. In addition, the environmentalists have turned against hydro and now want to demolish existing dams. Recent reports say that Biden supports demolishing the Snake River damn even though it generates electricity for millions of people. Thanks for your comments, MIchael. Ed
Yep, you are totally correct.
All energy sources are seriously constrained by geography. Hydro is an excellent example of a constrained energy source. It is great for Washington state and Norway, but very limited in most regions.
These geographical constraints mean that each region has to choose a different blend of energy sources. For Texas, natural gas is a total no-brainer because of the vast gas fields within their borders.
Fortunately, fossil fuels and nuclear are easily transported and/or stored, so they are less constrained by geography.
how about we just forget the whole thing
No, I think that it is very important for people to realize that there are viable alternatives to Green energy policies. Green energy policies are not only bad for the economy, but they will not even achieve their own stated objectives.
A big part of the reason why many people support Green energy policies is because they believe there is no other alternatives to climate catastrophe.
right lie fossil fuels
More then even the transfer of wealth from the West to developing nations the whole basis of the transition delusion stems from the hatred of the global left to multinational--particularly US--oil companies dating back over 50 years. Rising CO2 and the supposed threat it poses to humanity provides the perfect excuse to garner support among the voting public to finally put the boot in and finish them off once and for all...
You nailed it, Joseph! Thanks for the comment. Ed