Long facts, short truths – Where is Watt?

Gordon's Tomb

While listing many obstacles to abandoning the “green” energy of fossil fuels, three writers from the Journal of Foreign Affairs skip over the important fact: what was once a horror but now dying “energy transition” is and remains and remains unnecessary and still is unnecessary.

Instead, the article titled “The Hard-down Energy Transition: How to Find a Pragmatic Way” suggests that (1) the so-called transition is legitimized and (2) still should still happen in some way. Both are wrong.

The writers are outstanding people: Daniel Yergin, Pulitzer Prize-winning energy historian; Peter Orszag, chairman and CEO of Lazard; Atul Arya, chief energy strategist at S&P Global. Their 5,000-word paper discusses the issue extensively, but the language is not direct and misses the core of many things.

For example, the authors compare this transformation to the “green” energy from fossil fuels, which began in the 18th century and eventually replaced wood in the 1900s and used oil over coal as the primary fuel in the 1960s. They noted that the energy replaced continues to be well used in the transition, just as fossil fuels are used (or even growing in quantity) in introducing alternatives today.

However, the article works on the short content of energy density or how much it can be extracted from energy units. In the past transition process, smaller forms were needed to replace the same amount of work – coal was better than wood, oil was better than coal, and uranium beats pants.

Regarding today’s supposed transition, this article simply states: “Many functions and reduced costs in the entire energy system have not yet existed.”

What it really means is that wind, solar energy, green hydrogen, etc. are totally useless for providing reliable, affordable energy to large populations, and there is no reliable evidence for the ability to play that role. For example, wind and solar energy require multiple land and materials to produce the same amount of electricity as coal and nuclear power plants. This is why even large subsidies fail.

Regarding the difficulties provided for the Green Dream, the writer said: “Part of the problem is the huge cost: trillions of dollars, and it is uncertain about who is going to pay.” Without incentives for private investment, the government imposed carbon taxes are problematic, and neither the rich nor the population of poor countries can afford any taxes.

Without saying that the previous transition was driven by inventors, investors, engineers, mechanics and businessmen who leverage new fuels to work more efficiently with new machines and processes. New energy is organically developed by following the laws of nature and economics, rather than the power arising from government sponsorship.

The bone “climate” policy of the state government has made things messy. Energy in places like Germany and California has become more expensive and less expensive, causing predictable economic damage. This is a fact that needs to be said over and over again by smart people.

The most fundamental failure of writers is their pretend that moving “net zero emissions” away from fossil fuels is a worthwhile mission, only a “pragmatic way forward”. Quite the opposite.

Modern studies of geological and historical evidence of mountain and atmospheric physics show that:

• Since the Industrial Revolution, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has enabled the gas to improve the optimal level of plant growth. Crop production has improved and the global ecosystem has been green. We should put more cooperation₂ Go into the air, not less.
• Modern warming is neither unusual nor unprecedented. The Vikings planted grains in Greenland 1,000 years ago, and the Romans raised citrus in England 2,000 years ago. Today, both places are too cold.
• Fear of the “greenhouse” effect is an exaggeration of the warming potential of CO₂ and other gases and defective computer models that are repeatedly confirmed by real-world data. Due to the phenomenon of return, even double CO₂ From current concentrations, only moderate, beneficial warming will be caused.

We won't guess why such qualified writers ignore these good facts while continuing the false premise of decades-long public policy disaster. However, there is no “pragmatic way forward” for the transition of false energy, and the author should understand it better.

The review was originally published on April 24, 2023 at Real Clear Energy.

Gordon's Tomb is Carbon dioxide allianceFairfax, Virginia.

Related