“So first, it makes me believe that the only thing we want to fear is fearing ourselves – nameless, unreasonable, unreasonable horror, paralysis requires efforts to turn retreat into progress.”
This was the opening speech of President Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration speech in the depths of the Great Depression in 1933, when many could understand that they felt they had a lot to fear. [emphasis, links added]
Roosevelt suggested that this fear “was paralyzed and requires efforts to turn retreat into progress.”
Today we are in a similar situation. The main goal of a peace period for mankind is to push the spread of prosperity to all mankind, in line with the Judaism’s concept of Tikkun Olam: to repair the world to improve it.
In the West, this is achieved by replacing the energy used since prehistoric times (human and animal muscles, solar and wind) with coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy.
Then, in Al Gore's 2006 film, the pseudoscience of extremists became popular in “Inconvenient Truth”, which says that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would overheat the Earth and destroy civilization.
If not Wuming, this is undoubtedly a “unreasonable, unreasonable horror”, a relatively small “greenhouse” effect of a gas that sustains life, which emerges in the minds of many people.
Some policymakers are convinced that we must abandon fossil fuels and return to prehistoric sources, or in the current vernacular “net zero.”
It doesn't matter, before the widespread use of hydrocarbons, civilization was a thin veneer of dirty and painful preservation by slavery, feudalism, colonialism, and tyranny.
This demonization of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide has been debunked in many well-documented books, including Steven Koonin, Alex Epstein, Michael Shellenberger, Patrick Moore, Bjorn Lomborg and Gregory Wrightstone.
In addition, thousands of qualified scientists have signed public statements rejecting climate alerts, including the Global Warming Petition Project and the Climate Intelligence Foundation.
Organizations such as the Carbon Dioxide Alliance, Heartland Institute and the Constructive Tomorrow Commission regularly release materials that refute the claims of alarmists.
Yet, fear remains. Even many prestigious scientific societies support shockism claims, despite the vast amount of evidence of their falseness.
The governments in California, England and Germany have gone to great lengths to incorporate solar and wind into their power systems to harm their economies and citizens.
At least half of their electricity continues to come from coal or gas, because the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.
Like less developed countries, California suffers from relatively frequent rolling blackouts and Blunt. Among the major European countries, Germany is by far the largest part of its electricity with solar and wind power.
Germany's kilowatt-hour costs about twice as much as France, which is mainly nuclear and about three times as much as the United States.
Assuming that achieving “net zero” is possible will further increase costs, as some dynamic civilization plans are needed to compensate for the intermittent nature of wind and solar energy.
Consider the cost of a huge battery bank you currently like, which can provide power for 10 days.
The U.S. electricity demand is about 400 million kilowatts. Therefore, battery packs across the country must last about 10 days (about 250 hours) to provide the necessary 100 billion kWh of energy.
Tesla batteries will be stored between 50 and 100 kWh of hours and will cost between $5,000 and $20,000.
Assuming the conservative cost per 100 kWh of energy is $10,000 per 100 kWh, The country will have to spend $100 trillion on one billion batteries. Battery life is about 10 years, and the cost of alternatives is $1 trillion per year.
This wasteful spending undermines civilization.
Top photo of Javier Miranda
Reading break in Washington Times
