Renewable energy

Fossil Fuels Save Lives

Over the last 100 years, we've seen a 98 percent decrease in climate-related deaths. You can thank fossil fuels.

|

The "Greens" promise renewables, solar and wind power, will replace fossil fuels. After all, the wind and sun are free, and they don't pollute!

Oops.

Now countries that embraced renewables are so desperate for power that they eagerly import coal, the worst polluter of all!

Do they apologize? No. Greens never apologize.

Germany was a leader in renewable energy, so confident in solar and wind power that they closed half their nuclear plants.

Oops.

That leaves Germans so short of power that Germans are now desperate to buy fossil fuels from Russia. Even worse, pollution-wise, high pollution coal now tops wind as Germany's biggest electricity source. That's really disgusting.

Then, even after putting all that soot in the air, Germans pay more than triple what Americans pay for electricity.

For my new video, I confront German-born environmentalist Johanna Neumann of Environment America, a group that lobbies for 100 percent renewable energy.

I point out that despite massive subsidies, her beloved renewables still provide just 12 percent of our power. She responds, "Saying renewables are not yet powering our utility grid is like critiquing a 2-year-old for not being able to run a marathon."

A 2-year-old? I don't want to meet that kid. Renewables have been subsidized for 40 years, not two.

"How we spend our taxes ought to be a reflection of our values," Neumann adds. "Americans…love renewable energy."

Yes, I suppose we do. We like the idea of it. I put solar panels on my roof. I'd be a sucker not to. Massachusetts takes money from other state residents to give me a tax break on solar panels.

Still, in winter, when the sun is low, or my panels are covered by snow, I get nothing from my solar panels.

What kind of energy solution is that? People need energy when it's cloudy, too. They also need it when the wind doesn't blow.

"When the sun goes down…offshore winds get cranked up," says Neumann.

No, they don't!

"The wind doesn't always come up when the sun goes down," I point out.

"Renewables are clearly better," Neumann replies.

She says we'll solve renewable energy's inconsistency by doing things like storing energy in batteries.

Well, yes, a battery that holds energy for weeks would make renewables work. But it doesn't exist.

"This is just a total fantasy, which is why nobody has done it anywhere, ever!" says Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

Fossil fuels are moral, Epstein correctly points out, because human flourishing depends on them.

Abundant fossil fuels are especially important for poor people.

"Three billion people in the world still use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. Are we going to allow them to have a modern life? Because that's going to depend on fossil fuels."

Even if climate change becomes a serious problem, fossil fuels reduce its harm by making us prosperous enough to afford protection against the climate.

"We have a 98 percent decline in climate-related disaster deaths over the last 100 years," Epstein points out.

A 98 percent drop in deaths! This is the amazing untold story of fossil fuels and their benefits. Because oil and natural gas so efficiently provide power, heat homes when it's freezing, pump water during droughts, etc., millions thrive, despite problems like climate change.

Thanks to fossil fuels, "We have this amazing productive ability," says Epstein. "That's the only reason we experience the planet as livable."

Global warming is a threat. Limiting fossil fuels now, without a capable alternative, will make it even harder to deal with the effects.

Unless someone invents a miracle battery or something else that makes sun and wind power practical, we need fossil fuels, desperately.

Poor people need them most.

COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: Archives: April 2022

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shemale Sex for your best casual chat experience with fine ladies in France

    1. Fuck Joe Biden?

      1. Fuck Joe Biden with a shemale.

        1. OBL will be by to pump him full of LadyDick.

      2. Looks like your type. Geriatric, losing hair...yeah go for it.

    2. Sullum has turned the bots to this.

      1. Hard to believe the anti-spam software couldn't catch this if it tried.

  2. Fossil Fuels Save Lives

    Yet another reason to ban them!

    1. Are you trying to kill grandma?

  3. While the US was more actively involved in Iraq I saw a billboard in Upstate New York: Drill a well, save a soldier. Something along those lines. Making the point that increased domestic oil production would reduce our incentive to get involved in the Middle East.

    1. increased domestic oil production would reduce our incentive to get involved in the Middle East Eastern Europe.

      Fixed for current year.

  4. For many supporters of going with 100% renewable energy one of the benefits is that the environmental impacts happen elsewhere. Whether it is mining for minerals to make solar panels and batteries or the displacement and other damage derived from wind farms they don't effect the Tesla driving urban elites.

    If they really want to reduce dependency on fossil fuels they need to embrace nuclear rather than strip mining to make the asburd number of batteries required for renewals to work.

    1. We will run out of rare earth minerals long before we run out of fossil fuels. Also, what are they going to make all the panels out of? Can't use petrol based plastics. What are they going to use to insulate the miles of wires need to transport the *green* energy? Can't use petrol based rubbers. Pave the roads to move around the raw materials? Can't use asphalt. Tires? Feritilizer? Roofs? There is more to oil then energy.

      1. No one is going to stop using petroleum as a chemical feedstock.

        And is a world where every hill is covered with stupid windmills and every open field is covered in solar panels really some environmental paradise?

        1. You don't like piles of dead birds under windmills and dried up vegetation under solar panels? What's wrong with you?

          1. If the cost of chicken keeps going up, I may have to put a windmill up on my lot!

            1. You can cook it on the solar panel.

              1. Kill two birds with one stone that way.

                1. Kill a million birds with 1 windmill?

                  1. I've got the solution. Solar panel under the windmill.

                    Died and fried. Now all we need is some hot sauce.

              2. As an aside, we made solar ovens for 4-H camp one year, and planned on letting the kids cook their own hot dogs for lunch in them. They worked so badly we ended up having to fire up the gas grill to feed the kids.

                1. Same story 40 years ago when I was a kid.... that homemade solar "oven" was wussier than my sisters toy oven (the one that had a light bulb as a heating element).

    2. How about all of the above? Solar panels don't need to use rare earths, after all, and rare earths, unlike fossil fuels, aren't burned and used up forever.

      1. Rare earths are extremely difficult to recycle, and extremely expensive (more than mining them) to recycle. And the most efficient panels do need rare earths as do rechargable batteries. You fucking don't even know what you're talking about, once again.

        1. And you're repeating fossil fuel talking points just like every other post.

          If transitioning off fossil fuels is as impossible as you want everyone to believe, then we're fucked as a species, and trans people will be the least of your problems.

          1. Why are you bringing up trans people. And I've given you several, workable and realistic solutions but you rejected them for unworkable, unrealistic plans that have failed every time they've been tried. Germany, failed. The US, so far it's failed. Denmark, Norway, England, etc all failed. They rely now on fossil fuels from Russia for heat and electricity because their transition to renewables have failed to meet demand.

            1. And they have also failed to significantly reduce their GHG emissions while the US reduced it dramatically compared to them by simply changing from coal to natural gas. We have real world conditions that we rely on. Your the only one relying on false talking points.

            2. They rely now on fossil fuels from Russia for heat and electricity because their transition to renewables have failed to meet demand.

              And CA spent the summer operating in violation of not only our own air quality standards, but Newsom got an exemption from Federal air quality standards from the Biden administration because our grid can no longer handle standard summer loads and he wanted to avoid another summer of brownouts leading up to his recall election.

              1. Par for the course. The more they demonize and try to switch from fossil fuels the more reliant on them they become, but try to hide it. Germany leads the world on this. They buy a good portion of their electricity from neighboring countries that produce it using older coal plants, so Germany can claim they don't use coal in their own country.

                1. They buy a good portion of their electricity from neighboring countries that produce it using older coal plants, so Germany can claim they don't use coal in their own country.

                  For us, that's what Nevada is for.

                  1. Yeah I've heard that. Also, Nevada and Oregon are also for getting water from too, from what I understand.

                    1. And lumber and laborers.

          2. Stop with your nonsense. As usual with u idiots u got everything backwards. Oil is a by product of natural plants and animals decomposing into a fossil fuel. Meaning it's a bio fuel that is renewable. The co2 nonsense has never been proven OUTSIDE of a computer. 60-yrs of one prediction of doom after another shown to not even be close to being correct. Extracting oil is far less of a polluting entity then the extraction of ALL the metals needed for batteries. When the needed recycling of these batteries every 5-yrs is added to the equation...., the environmentally harm goes thru the roof. To supply all the silly changing stations the electric grid would need to double in size. What's the number one fuel used in generating electricity? Coal baby. So u see u intellectual children,,,, batteries suck. U believers in the religion of Scientism r truly but 24/7 lying ass morons. EVERYTHING u jackasses belive is false. U can be shown time and again the ignorance in your beliefs. Yet there u r EVERYDAY.., wearing your "mask" of ignorance proudly. So what if it's all bullshit. After all..., a person's gotta pose right? As looking in the mirror at your true self reflects nothing but a human piece of shit. Every one of u playing dress up like clown day.., 24/7.., 365-days a year.
            The Phucko Knows

      2. And the process of mining/refining silica quartz for solar panels is clean?

    3. All advocates of fossil fuels like to ignore the reality that it is ALL just solar energy. And there are external costs for all of it. Fossil fuels are just solar energy that was stored for millions of years. It is not 'renewable' because we are combusting it millions of times faster than those fuels are being created. And one cost of those combusted hydrocarbons is that we are releasing millions of years of carbon sequestration into the atmosphere/oceans over maybe a couple centuries.

  5. The "renewable" crowd are like the organic farm crowd. We created amazing technologies that allow us to grow more food from less land that is disease, pest, and drought resistant. Crop failures and mass starvation are things of the past. The greenies say fuck all that, lets go back to the bad old days.

    1. And organic doesn't even help the soil, contrary to popular belief. First, the number one pest control is a combination of deep tillage with fallow. This disturbs and kills soil microbes. It also increases soil erosion. No till and minimal till allows continuous cropping without fallow and improves soil organic matter while disturbing soil microbes very minimally. It also drastically reduces erosion, as you leave stubble and roots in the field which holds the soil in place. Additionally, the increase in residue, soil microbes and organic matter makes the soil more drought resistant and able to hold more water. Having living roots in the field every year, and smaller breaks between when the roots are living in the field (no fallow years) improves soil health. All together it also improves nutrient uptake by plants, meaning less fertilizer is needed per bushel. Also, per bushel you use produce less carbon dioxide because you work the fields less often. The trade off is you use chemical pesticides to control insects, weeds and disease, but modern chemical pesticides are far safer, than the older ones and far less polluting than the older ones, and more effective, that organic is allowed to use. In return you get double to triple the yield on a bushel per acre basis than organic.

  6. "Are we going to let them have a modern life?" is one of the most telling quotes. "We" are the rich first world countries who made the mess to begin with, and now assume that "we" somehow are invested with the power and authority to tell "them" what kind of life they can have. This is the "Green Man's Burden" theory of dealing with climate change issues, and essentially assumes and requires a global system of government that supersedes the national sovereignty of the countries where "they" live.
    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. assume that "we" somehow are invested with the power and authority to tell "them" what kind of life they can have

      The "those people" racism so common among progressives.

  7. One of the biggest lies of environmentalism is that it's for the sake of the poor. If you really want to hurt the poor, making energy more expensive is a good way to go. The best thing for the poor (and ultimately the environment) would be to encourage the production of cheap, efficient energy. That's the best way to spur economic development and economic development is how you get people to care about the environment.

    1. As a general rule, when someone claims to be a champion of the poor, their true motivation is hatred of the rich. And they don't give a flying fuck what happens to the poor as long as the rich get torn down.

      1. I'd say either hatred of the rich or as a convenient excuse to enact the sorts of policies that they favor anyway (e.g. "watermelons").

        1. Watermelons are red on the inside commies, right? What are they other than haters of the rich? Power to the people!

          1. Yeah, pretty much. Though there are a lot of rich commies these days. Though I suppose resentment of one's own class isn't a new thing. Orwell's observations about other socialists seem relevant.

            1. Though there are a lot of rich commies these days. Though I suppose resentment of one's own class isn't a new thing.

              There seems to be a high correlation between being a communist and being the child of a successful stock broker/CEO.

              1. Despite claims of generational wealth hoarding, the children of stock brokers and CEOs rarely remain wealthy, unlike the children of communist leaders

                1. Perhaps the same dynamic works in the opposite direction as well.

      2. That psychobabble seems suspect to me. I want the poor to have a higher standard of living, but I really prefer hanging out with the rich, and I'd much rather be rich than poor.

        So between the two of us, you're the only one advocating hurting people.

        1. We know you're an elitist, you don't need to broadcast it, much like you don't need to broadcast your stupidity.

          1. Thanks, I do strive for excellence.

            1. That wasn't even clever. That was a self own. Why do you even bother? You can't joke and you rarely are informed enough to make a salient point.

            2. Of course. The Omaha School of Philosophy demands no less.

        2. Yes, Tony, you have always made your contempt for the poor clear.

          1. Empathy is a liability of progressives. You can empathize until you're blue in the face, and it doesn't actually help anyone if you don't figure out how to act.

            1. And your solutions don't work, so you have neither empathy or a practical plan.

            2. And your favored solutions will do great harm to poor people. Sure, in the developed world we can throw money at them. But that doesn't actually solve the problems of poverty. And leaves most of the world's poor out. "Saving" humanity from global warming isn't worth much if you have to throw half of humanity under the bus to achieve it.

              1. Feature not a bug, to idiots like Tony. The part they never say out loud is that they actually want people to die, because they feel there are to many people on the Earth already. Rainbow Six was a fiction book, but actually based on environmentalists wishes.

              2. Sure, in the developed world we can throw money at them. But that doesn't actually solve the problems of poverty. And leaves most of the world's poor out.

                In fact, throwing government money at US problems devalues the dollar which actively harms the economies of developing countries. It's not just a failure to help the poor in the developing world, it's active exploitation of them.

              3. I'm not sure what policies you're referring to or which you're offering as an alternative.

                I don't necessarily know how to fix the entire world and feed every starving child. I do know that some assholes have been getting rich destroying the planet, and a necessary and good first step is stopping them.

                1. I listed several if you read what I wrote you'd know. But that would take actual work and thinking on your behalf. Which I understand is to hard for you.

            3. Speaking of empathy……

              Tony, I’d wager that a younger version of you would be horrified at the thought of defending (not just preferring - you’re way past that) a lifelong parasitic authoritarian piece of shit like joe “I wrote the damn crime bill” Biden. He of the “urban jungles” remark.

              Makes one think that your frequently signaled empathy for the much maligned black man is a bunch of bullshit.

              1. Biden was not my first choice in the 2020 primary, but even a younger version of myself was aware that life doesn't offer perfect choices, it just offers choices.

                1. But you still push for a system that had failed in every country that's tried it, while ignoring actual solutions that would make things better. No, you haven't realized there are no perfect choices. You just follow like a newborn lamb whatever the Democrats feed you.

        3. "2. Conservative, or Bourgeois, Socialism:

          The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

          * * *

          Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism.

          It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois—for the benefit of the working class."

          - Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

        4. Nothing has done more to lift people out of poverty than capitalism, fueled by fossil fuels.

          1. And now fossil fuels are destroying the global environment. Fossil fuels don't have feelings. We can stop using them and it won't be a problem.

            1. It would be a huge problem for the people of the world. But you keep ignoring that. Your solution simply doesn't work.

      3. R u being sarcastic? Or once more just spouting your shallow world view? It's hard to tell with all the nonsense your always throwing up. It's not about folks being "successful" in r modern slave systems. It's about the Mega rich and all the bs they've covered the systems in to get Mega rich. If u r incapable of seeing this human corruption and evil for what it has sown..., Well... Then u r wanting in maintaining your ignorance. Congrats on your success in pushing out Evils hidden narrative of modern day slave hood..., being a good thing.
        The Phucko Knows

    2. Agreed. Cheap energy has lifted more out of poverty than any other technological advancement. Yet we hamper countries from development of energy sources such as Africa.

    3. My great grandpa bought his first tractor in 1956. Before that all his sons worked on the farm after they got out of the service. By buying one tractor, his three sons were able to quit farming and get jobs in town that paid better and lifted them out of avert poverty. One single tractor replaced three 6'+ tall, 175+ lb Norwegian farm kids and their kids for the most part. During haying he still needed help because he didn't buy a baler until ten years later, so all the cousins (and there was a heap of them, what else do you do on long cold South Dakota nights) spent the summer at his farm helping with haying, but once he got a baler he was able to do it with one or two helpers.

      1. And the Luddites count that as "destroying jobs".

        1. Yeah, we need to go back to pre-1941, when over half of the country was involved directly in agriculture and people dealt constantly with food insecurity. I forgot, because times were so much better. Let's not mention that in those times, people didn't have the resources or time to worry about harming the environment. That we didn't start worrying about the environment until people became wealthy enough to have time and resources to worry about it.

        2. And the Luddites count that as "destroying jobs".

          There's a whole chapter of The Grapes of Wrath on the evils wrought by the tractor.

  8. "Renewables are clearly better," Neumann replies.

    And this is why I always tell Climate Alarmists that I have no interest in discussing their religion with them.

    1. It isn't alarmism because it is happening. Sure the media does its thing, don't get me started, but spewing more carbon dioxide and methane into the air will, over time, trap more heat and it takes many years to dissipate. Fossil fuels do not last forever. We must get rid of our dependency on them for the sake of our future generations. Now the question is how? I do believe markets will, like many other things, answer this question in the most efficient way. We must take care of our planet. It is the only one we have.

  9. Just when I think you've hit your stupidest point, you go further.

    Well done jackass.

    A lot more has to do with shutting down nuclear plants earlier than they would've as a knee jerk reaction to Fukushima.

    But goddamn, this is just...wow. You are either the dumbest fucking person or just playing the part for your Koch overlords. Either way, you're a fucking idiot.

    1. What is untrue in what he said?

    2. You, you, you.

      Other than "It's self evident duh!" and "You're a poo-poo head!" do you have any arguments against the content of what was said? I thought it was spot on.

      1. Who are you trying to impress with that comment? Just curious. Because I was not impressed. At all.

    3. SHUT UP, he explained.

    4. That might be the most worthless comment in these threads. And given the other comments here, that's saying a lot. At least the shemail spam had the potential to be titillating to someone.

    5. Raspberry and Biden are all in on the plan that ruined Germany’s grid, tripled their electricity prices, and now have them dependent on Putin and coal for their power.

      Their virtue is more important than doing something that will work.

  10. An acquaintance just got back from a "mission trip" to Honduras.
    Huge proportion of cooking is done on wood fires. I understand that something like 20-25% of all CO2 comes just from cooking fires in undeveloped nations. How long, and how much, to have these folks jump right from burning wood to solar and wind power?

    1. I understand that something like 20-25% of all CO2 comes just from cooking fires in undeveloped nations.

      That's a misleading statistic. Wood fires don't add CO2 to the atmosphere in the way that fossil fuels do. The CO2 released from burning wood was recently in the atmosphere anyway. As opposed to fossil fuels that have been underground for a very long time. Burning them releases new CO2. Breathing and burning plants does not.

      1. But it is another way fossil fuels save lives. Cooking on wood fires makes for very unhealthy air quality with lots of particulates. Kerosene or propane is a huge step up both in efficiency and health.

      2. It is a misleading statistic but your rebuttal is also a bit misleading. Yes, the CO2 from burning wood is a faster carbon cycle than the CO2 from fossil fuels. However, but for the need to burn that wood for fuel, it could be sequestered in other ways. For example, you could keep the wood around as building materials, potentially taking it out of the CO2 cycle for century or even low millennial timescales. Or turn it into paper, then dispose of it in an anaerobic landfill. Or you could leave it in the forest to decompose into replenished topsoil and/or begin the slow journey to becoming the next generation of fossil fuels. All those options are taken off the table when you burn it for fuel.

        What matters is the total budget in the aggregate carbon cycle. All carbon released vs all carbon sequestered. CO2 from recent sources is not magically "better" than CO2 from old sources.

        1. The recently grown tree would still be capturing carbon if it isn't being burnt, unless they are only burning deadfall.

          1. Depends. Uptake of carbon by trees is not straight line relationship. It's more asymptomatic, carbon uptake reduces as the tree matures, most fast growing trees, carbon uptake drastically reduces after age five or six, but they aren't harvestable until year 8-10. The best plant for carbon uptick are perineal grasses. Range is a far better carbon sink than forests. Using GMO technology to develop perineal cereals would do more to remove carbon than planting trees will.

        2. Lighting starts a Forrest fire. CO2 is created. The more CO2 in the air... The better plants grow. As the Forrest comes back healthier then before the fire. Generating more of and a better quality of oxygen for all breathing entities on earth. All of it a natural occurrence. So by doing EVERYTHING possible to "limit" CO2. U r doing EVERYTHING possibly to limit the air quality and health of all that breath oxygen. Quality of oxygen is the key to the health of all breathing entities. Stronger makes for better quality of the nutrients and minerals found in all food consumed by all life. Which in turn makes the consummer stronger and healthier. What's the first thing a hospital generally does when u arrive sick or wounded? Puts u on pure oxygen. Limiting CO2 is what's causing society and mother earth's "problems" at the moment. Everything is running at 50% efficiency at best. Release more CO2 into the air..... And watch the whole world awaken to what it was meant to be.
          The Phucko Knows

    2. Wood is renewable energy.

      1. So it would seem are coal, oil and nat gas. Just takes a lot longer.

        1. There are companies actually working on converting CO2 into fuels like natural gas and gasoline, but the environmentalist actually don't like this because it still uses gasoline and natural gas to create power, even though it would be carbon neutral, possibly even carbon negative.

  11. "Saying renewables are not yet powering our utility grid is like critiquing a 2-year-old for not being able to run a marathon."

    That's the same thing a Penn State professor told our environmental studies class back in 1978. Some things never change.

    1. "Some things never change."

      The energy grid is not optimal for renewables. If the energy grid was inadequate in 1978, it's inadequate today. Same grid, same limitations. A grid using high voltage direct current like the one being built in China is called for. Such a grid should let us use electricity generated on the other side of the globe and vice versa. The sun actually never 'goes down,' it's the planet that rotates on its axis.

      Countries like India and China will take positions of leadership in addressing climate change. They have the least invested in the status quo, and are large, forward looking countries, optimistic about their future, with a proven track record of survival that goes back some 5000 years.

      1. What’s the plan for transmitting power across the ocean?

        1. It can run on the third rail of the train tracks AOC plans to lay down.

        2. Do you know how many time zones there are in the Soviet Union?
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDmWYVdN8ug

      2. Countries like India and China will take positions of leadership in addressing climate change.

        Which is why they're building so many coal-fired plants.

        1. They want to increase their standard of living. Fossil fuels are the quickest way to do so. It says as much in the article. They also want to decrease pollution in the cities. They decommission coal burning plants that pollute the cities and build more modern plants nearer the source of the coal. That explains also their program to build a HVDC grid, to get the power from coal fields to cities with minimal loss.

          1. So pollution's okay, as long as the commies are creating it?

            1. Just don't spit. That's the real pollution.

            2. "So pollution's okay, as long as the commies are creating it?"

              Actually the position of Reason and the fossil fuel lobby is that pollution's OK especially if the poorer half of the world is creating it. Schellenberger, one of the authors frequently cited here, advises the wealthier nations to invest money in the exploitation of a heretofore non existent coal industry in Africa so they can raise their standard of living to be on a par with the wealthy nations.

              1. And??? That's a bad thing, people standard of living increasing, because??? Oh, that's right, it might harm Gaia.

                1. Coal is icky.

                  1. So use natural gas. Which is more efficient, cleaner and just as available. And actually easier to operate than coal fired plants.

                2. Coal burning is bad because it pollutes the air and contribites to carbon emissions.

                  1. So use natural gas. Or use carbon capture to trap the carbon dioxide. Both are technologically plausible and workable.

                    1. China has a vast reserve of coal. Minimal reserves of natural gas. Hence their use of coal to generate electricity. I'm sure if they had the natural gas, they would use it, but they don't. It has to be imported. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese too desire 'energy independence.'

                    2. China isn't a developing country, it's an already developed country, albeit it's development is very limited to it's urban areas.

                    3. "China isn't a developing country"

                      It's developing as we speak. It seems incredible but they used more concrete in the 3 years from 2011 to 2014, I believe, than the US produced during the entire 20th century. But there are plenty of backwards areas where families are so poor they have to share a pair of trousers.

              2. Schellenberger, one of the authors frequently cited here, advises the wealthier nations to invest money in the exploitation of a heretofore non existent coal industry in Africa so they can raise their standard of living to be on a par with the wealthy nations.

                You're leaving off "so that they can then develop cleaner and more sustainable forms of energy production than burning wood," much like you were just praising China for doing.

                1. Why sink money into a non existent African coal industry? The Chinese are building lots of infrastructure there, like the high speed rail link between Nairobi in the interior of Kenya, and Mombasa, their principal port. There's plenty of info on the net about the link, including video on youtube if you are curious. Judging by the comments in this forum, Americans don't want to spend any money helping Africans develop, as they are a continent of 'shithole countries.' Some empire!

                  1. And what is that infrastructure being built by China for? Oh yeah, to allow these countries to transport their oil and other fossil fuels much more efficiently so China can use it.

                    1. "And what is that infrastructure being built by China for? "

                      Passenger and freight service between Nairobi and Mombasa.A first class ticket will set you back some $US 30 for the 500km trip. China imports oil from the mid east, like most of the world. Not Kenya which produces only 0.1% of the world's fossil fuels according to internet sources.

      3. China is going to pretend to take the lead on climate change because they know they can trick all the self hating westerners into shooting themselves in the foot (while buying cheap solar panels and generators from China).

        1. Vanity. People tend to overestimate the attention paid to them by the communist government.

          1. It's not vanity it's actual reality. Communist countries always have believed it's their duty to break the wealthy west to spread communism across the globe. Hell, Marx said as much in his writing, as did Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc. It's literally a tenant of Communism, whichever flavor you choose.
            As for the individual, communism is like fascism, it didn't take the state monitoring you closely, because your neighbors will rat you out, because if they don't and get caught, they are punished too. And you never know who is working for the Gestapo, NKVD, KGB etc. You know it's unlikely but it's never impossible, therefore you don't take chances.

            1. "Communist countries always have believed it's their duty to break the wealthy west to spread communism across the globe."

              The wealthy west will break on its own accord. Once upon a time, Great Britain was the focus of capitalism. Then Europe, then New England, then the mid west, what is now known as 'the rust belt.' The focus moving east to China seems inevitable and will happen whatever the self hating Americans do or don't do.

              It was never Marx's attempt to 'break the west.' Indeed, he was certain the communism must take root in the west before it could spread elsewhere. Lenin and Mao saw differently. Mao didn't even look to industrial workers to lead the way, but the peasant farmers.

              "As for the individual, communism is like fascism, it didn't take the state monitoring you closely, because your neighbors will rat you out, because if they don't and get caught, they are punished too"

              That's socialism, the system employed in much of the west today, including the US where individuals are surveilled closely and constantly on a scale unprecedented in human history. Check out the writings of Edward Snowden if you are curious about this. Communism is about common ownership of the means of production.

              1. Yes, Marx felt he needed the west to break, i.e. capitalism to fail for communism to take root. God, even when trying to be pendantic you still get it wrong. As for China, it won't become a center of capitalism, first because Xi is hindering their growth with his authoritarianism and second because the fundamentals just don't exist to make them successful. They've already have a far worse aging population than the west. And they have huge debt, huge social spending liabilities, an undervalued currency, a huge housing bubble and banking bubble that only hasn't popped because the government keeps propping them up but it can't last. A centrally planned economy will never last long enough to supplant a capitalist economy. In the short term yes, but it is illusionary. The Soviet economy was almost as strong as western economies in the 1950s, but by the end of the 1960s was trailing far behind and losing ground. North Korea actually had a stronger economy than South Korea after the Korean war, but by the 1960s South Korea was ahead and growing while North Korea was falling behind. Venezuela, Cuba etc. China is doing well right now, but it's still a communist, centrally planned economy with huge obligations that they'll soon have to deal with, a below replacement level birth rate for generations, an aging population. Everything that is wrong with our economy and society is nothing compared to what happens in China. Surveillance far worse, centrally planned economy and manipulated currency, far worse, aging population far worse, social obligations that exceed tax income, far worse. And they don't even have immigration to offset some of these problems. Even before the pandemic most companies were starting to relocate from manufacturing in China to southeast Asia and India.

                1. "Yes, Marx felt he needed the west to break,"

                  No, you've misconstrued Marx who thought that the movement from capitalism to communism wasn't about 'breaking the west' but a historically inevitable step. Lenin took a gamble with communism in Russia on the assumption the it would come to Germany soon, as Marx predicted.

                  "As for China, it won't become a center of capitalism"

                  Take a trip to your local Wallmart, check out their merchandise and get back to me. It's already the center of capitalism.

                  "but by the 1960s"

                  Ah, the 60s. Wasn't that when America's rust belt lead the world in industrial production? Motor City etc...

      4. Holy shot you are an idiot. How many EE classes have you taken?

  12. It seems that a 10 fold increase in fossil fuel consumption for the poorer nations of the world, about half the world's population, is being prescribed. It also seems that the wealthier half of the globe is expected to continue with their current levels of fossil fuel consumption, if not increase them. I suppose this is the 'free market' solution to mitigate climate change. It will only increase the amount of heat trapping gas emissions, however.

    1. Or we adopt actual measures for improving effeciency. Europe has far less polluting ICE that get far better gas mileage because they regulate based on kM driven not per gallon (liter), emissions. These vehicles can't be purchased in the US because we regulate on time driven or per gallon basis. This means that we actually hinder efficiency and hurt the environment with our environmental regulations. If we changed our regulatory system to actual production we would easily decrease both pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide etc while decreasing carbon dioxide. Most developed countries, including the US, are actually decreasing carbon dioxide output, not increasing, even while fossil fuel use has increased, because technology is much better. A few simple changes would improve this even more. But the environmental lobby throws a fit whenever you try and change anything with environmental regulations, even if it would be more beneficial to the environment to change it.

      1. "Or we adopt actual measures for improving effeciency. "

        Improving efficiency is always a good thing, but that's not the position of Reason or the fossil fuel lobby. They don't say so specifically, but the implications are clear. No reduction in burning fossil fuels on the wealthier half of the planet, and a 10 fold increase on the poorer half.

        American's monkeying about with their regulatory regime is not going to solve what is a problem of global scope. For leadership, we'll have to look to China and India. China is the world's leading producer of electric vehicles, far outstripping their nearest rival Germany, the world leader in solar capacity, 3 times that of the US, the nearest rival. They have the planet's most ambitious nuclear program, HVDC grid construction, and hydro electric program.

        That would mean less fossil fuel consumption, wouldn't it? That's not the solution the fossil fuel lobby or Reason is promoting.

        1. That's bullshit and you know it.

          1. Of course any information coming from China is to be taken with a grain of salt. A few years back, economists discovered that changes in night time luminescence observed from satellites correlated with economic growth figures. When they turned the spot light in China, they discovered that the official figures were overestimating by 100%. Still, even if we halved the figures, China would still lead the world in production of EVs, solar capacity, nuclear and hydro power and HVDC grid construction.

            1. They're the leading producer of EVs and solar panels because they control 80% of the rare earth production and they have looser environmental regulations which allows them to construct these in a polluting manner that drastically undersells our safer and cleaner production models. They also forced urbanization on their rural communities, so they can centralize control of the people while also making EVs more attractive, and making electricity distribution easier. Despite all this, the US is reducing GHG emissions while China is increasing them dramatically year to year.

              1. China also lacks the investmennt in fossil fuel infrastructute. Sunken cost fallacy i belive the economists call it.

                1. China lacks infrastructure period, for just about anything outside of it's major urban areas. They can't even ship the wheat and corn they grow in the northwest portion of the country, to their ports or animal agriculture areas in the southeast. So they pay farmers to grow it, store it (and I use store loosely) and buy grain from other countries. The myth of Chinese infrastructure is just that, a myth. It's Potemkin infrastructure. Invested heavily in urban areas that westerners visit and almost non existent anywhere else.

                  1. "China lacks infrastructure period, for just about anything outside of it's major urban areas. "

                    How much time have you spent outside China's major urban areas? I've spent quite a bit, as I avoid the big dirty cities, and prefer the south and west, Yunnan, Tibet etc. One big surprise came to me in Yunnan, in a town not far from the border with Vietnam. They had cable TV! Something that hadn't reached my home in the country side yet. Such is the advantage in a lack of infrastructure, the ability to leap over intermediate stages like broadcast TV.

                    Also in Yunnan, I visited a Hmong village so far off the beaten path that it didn't have any roads or electricity. I only went there to visit the church that Jesuits have built a century earlier. I spent a couple weeks there and the villagers put me up in the church. It was a wonderful feeling I got approaching the village for the first time. My first impression was to hear the hymns being sung during the evening church service. I visited the village again a couple years later and guess what. There was a road and electricity. So much for you Potemkin Infrastructure. I promise you the road and the electricity were real.

                    1. Oh you just said the village didn't have electricity or roads. Then you said it wasn't a Potemkin infrastructure. You also referred to the area just north of Vietnam, on the east coast where most the urban centers are, so yes it had infrastructure. I spoke of western China, where they can't even ship the grain to Eastern China to sell it, because of lack of infrastructure. I notice you specifically stated areas that are close to their larger urban areas, except Tibet, which has infrastructure basically for military reasons, so that the military can keep it under control. Your sinophilia is so strong that you miss all that's wrong with China.

                  2. "Oh you just said the village didn't have electricity or roads."

                    You seem to have misunderstood. Luduke is the name of the village with the church. When I first visited no roads no electricity. Second visit, both roads and electricity. Real roads, real electricity. Not great roads, mind you, but serviceable, at least in dry weather.

                    "You also referred to the area just north of Vietnam,"

                    The Red River. It's not really close to any urban center at all of any size. It is a town named Jinping, home to Hmong, Yao, Lahu, Akha, and other 'hill tribes.' They had both roads and electricity and cable TV.

                    "which has infrastructure basically for military reasons, so that the military can keep it under control"

                    Partly true. It's a branch of the police, the Wujing, that keeps things under control. The PLA have other fish to fry. According to an acquaintance, a colonel in the Taiwan airforce, Tibet is of strategic importance for its altitude and position in the south. Something to do with launching ICBMs, otherwise, it's mostly empty grasslands and mountains. The first known nuclear weapon was brought onto the Tibetan Plateau in 1971 and installed in the Tsaidam (Ch. Qaidam) Basin in northern Amdo (Ch. Qinghai). China is currently believed to have 17 secret radar stations, 14 military airfields, eight missile bases, at least eight ICBMs, 70 mediumrange missiles and 20 intermediate range missiles in the whole of Tibet (DIIR 1998; DIIR 1996c). I remember seeing some of the military infrastructure (giant radar dishes, I assume) when I inadvertently ventured into an area which was closed to foreigners. It was in above mentioned Qinghai Province, one of my favorite areas.

  13. One of the few public programs I actually think benefitted people (and it was more a public/private cooperation) was the electrifying of rural America under FDR and Truman. It raised a lot of families out of poverty, while improving sanitation. Before electricity, a typical family would spend a whole day doing laundry for the family for a week. Now it takes two to three hours. Cooking and preserving times also decreased dramatically. Even today, with electricity, preserving food is faster than in the days of my great grandparents. I can boil water in under 15 minutes, put in the vegetables, fruit or meat we are canning, keep it at a constant boil for the necessary time, with little to no effort. I can blanche vegetables from my garden and freeze them and they're good for months (even years though not recommended). It might take us a day to preserve all our vegetables from the garden, whereas in my great grandparents days it took them weeks and months to do the same, and the preservation was good for much less time.
    I slaughtered a steer last month, got it back from the butcher two days ago. I will be able to use that meat for as long as it lasts, safe in my freezer. I don't have to smoke it, salt it, or can it to keep it fresh. It literally took my two hours to do that. One hour to transport the steer to the butcher and one hour to pick up the meat and get it in my freezer. It also saved me a lot of money. I got all the cuts, including ribeye, prime rib, t bone, sirloin, brisket etc, for under $6/lb when I factor in butcher cost and operating cost. If I had to buy meat every day, it would cost me $6.50/lb just for hamburger. Without electricity, I would have to find another preservation technique for that 394 pounds of beef j just got, and lose a not small amount to spoilage. If we get a deer this fall or two, I may not have to pay for meat again this year. We also are getting chicks, which will allow us to have eggs and chicken this fall. We're buying fertilized eggs from a friend and hatching them ourselves, and they are a dual purpose bird, so lay less eggs, but more than enough for our use once they reach maturity (which won't be until next spring) and the roosters can be butchered this fall and then frozen until we use them.

    1. That's our plan for dealing with inflation. We are buying local what we can't grow ourselves, and ordering bulk every couple of months from Costco. We're cutting out the twice monthly long trips to the bigger towns that have supermarkets. In many ways, we are going back to what my grandparents grew up with, but it's much easier for us because we have electricity and they didn't. We have gas operated rotor tillers and safe chemical pesticides. We don't rely on horse flesh to care for our stock or to do chores.

    2. Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson goes into great detail of his efforts to electrify the Texas hill country in 1937. It was heavily dependent on government money and involvement, and proudest achievement. Not something the Reason magazines of the day would have supported.

      http://library.lol/main/4E4ACF8FF9B11119CE0D161563D8EE3C

      1. As the majority leader of the senate in the 1950s, Johnson was instrumental in the construction of the hydro electric facilities on Hell's Canyon on the Snake River. He needed western support for his passage of civil rights legislation and as Idaho didn't have any blacks to speak of, but needed power, Johnson put together a deal to garner western support.

    3. As Ulysses Everett McGill put it:

      No, the fact is, they're flooding this valley so they can hydroelectric up the whole durn state. Yessir, the South is gonna change. Everything's gonna be put on electricity and run on a paying basis. Out with old spiritual mumbo-jumbo, the superstition and the backward ways. We're gonna see a brave new world where they run everyone a wire and hook us all up to the grid. Yessir, a veritable age of reason - like they had in France. And not a moment too soon...

      1. And the south really did change from a poor, mostly rural and agricultural area into now a major manufacturing area, much higher standard of living (while still having a low cost of living) and a growing tech industry. Their educational achievement has also dramatically increased. Kids no longer needed to drop out at 8th grade to help on the farm, and could actually graduate high school and even attend college if they wanted.

  14. Just... JFC. The stupidity. My god, the stupidity.

    1. You, yes we know your stupidity is painful, you didn't need to post to inform us of that.

      1. Stupidity is bliss. If you didn't believe climate change was hanging over the future of humanity, you really don't have fuck all to worry about. Trans people existing, I guess. Must be nice.

        1. Did you just look in the mirror, because that original post is the closest you have ever come to self reflection on here.

        2. I don't "believe" in any science. I accept the science. Believe is something a religion does, not scientists. I do accept the science of climate change, but also accept that renewables are not the answer to solving it. Nuclear, more efficient ICE, better grid, more efficient buildings, production, carbon capture, etc are better and provide more stability and are more easily implemented in economic depressed areas. Unlike you, I believe in shit that works, and is realistic, not fucking pipe dreams.

          1. Or you could put solar panels on every roof. I think you don't support renewables because they neither profit the petroleum industry (over and above any random startup) nor are slow enough to implement (like nuclear) to allow the petroleum industry to continue profiting.

            I don't believe you actually think that, I believe you have been told to think that by petroleum industry mouthpieces like this magazine.

            And I don't know what this business about belief is. If science doesn't motivate you to believe or disbelieve things, then what's the point?

            1. Solar panels on every roof wouldn't even come close to achieving your dreams. You don't understand the thing about belief because you don't understand the difference between science and theology, because to you science is theology, as demonstrated by your stupid solar panels on every roof and anti-nuclear diatribe. As for the petroleum industry, you do realize that you can't build solar panels without petroleum based plastics, don't you? The biggest funder of the anti-nuclear movement is the petroleum companies. Once you design an EV that can haul greater than 7700 pounds 40 miles, in sub zero temperatures I'll gladly buy it. But they don't exist right now, I've looked. Also, when you can design a solar panel that will allow me to heat my house 50 miles from the Canadian border, in the middle of December when we get only about 7 hours of daylight, and temperatures are often double digits below zero, I'll install them. Fuck stop posting and showing how stupid you are and how much you don't understand about what you're talking about.

              1. So let's put solar panels on every roof and then see how much fossil fuels we still need to burn?

                This is just not the black/white issue you need it to be to grasp it.

                1. You will burn almost the same amount of fossil fuels, per Germany's experience and California's. It's a stupid dimwitted idea that wouldn't solve a single fucking thing, and the fact that you still keep pushing it shows how fucking stupid you are.

                2. "So let's put solar panels on every roof and then see how much fossil fuels we still need to burn."

                  At what cost to the environment to mine, produce, and transport everything necessary to do this? And what happens in 20 years when they're at 40-70% utility? Do we do it again? Who is going to pay for this? Why don't we just give everyone a small nuclear reactor instead?

                  1. I don't care which form of nonpolluting energy production we use.

            2. Paraphrasing Tony - “this plan just fucked up Germany so let’s do it here!” We’ll just ignore the real world example.

              And then you’ve got the gall to call other people stupid.

              1. I just told him that above. He doesn't even understand what he is talking about but is convinced he is the one following the science. In science if our hypothesis fails under testing we reject or refine it, not double down on it, like Tony and his ilk do.

                1. But *this* time, it's going to work.

              2. I've listed several ways to reduce GHG emissions, improving the efficiency of our grid (which would also make it safer and reduce wild fires sparked by broken electrical wires), changing the way we regulate pollution from ICE and power plants to improve (often almost double) to a by volume manufactured or produced basis e.g. per kWh and per mile driven basis, carbon capture and nuclear. These are all unpopular with the environmentalists, but would actually greatly reduce GHG emissions and or remove carbon from our atmosphere, thus reducing climate change, while also not sacrificing standard of living or national stability. He rejected them for a stupid put solar panels on every roof plan that would not even come close to achieving the same benefits that the plans I listed would.

                1. Not to mention the pre installation and post installation environmental cost of installing all that solar would be breathtaking. And that grants the assumption that we could get our hands on enough recourses to build it out.

                  1. Also, what is the average life span of windmills and solar panels compared to nuclear power plants. Eight at best compared to fifty years?

            3. “I think you don't support renewables because they neither profit the petroleum industry (over and above any random startup) nor are slow enough to implement (like nuclear) to allow the petroleum industry to continue profiting.”

              That’s an interesting narrative. Any resemblance to reality grounded in facts, or just sounds nice?

              1. Exxon had a choice. It chose to hire tobacco industry PR folks to lie to the world about the true threat of global warming. And all you idiots bought it.

                1. No one fucking bought it. Most people recognize climate change is happening we just disagree with how dangerous it is and how to address it. Your to fucking stupid to understand that nuance. It's easier for you to make fallacious arguments against shit no one actually said. Like any true fundamentalist.

                  1. It's existentially dangerous to all species on earth. There, I'm glad to clear that up.

                    Five years ago, 90% of the people here denied the problem even existed. I bet 50%+ still do.

                    All I ask is that you stop being part of the problem. You don't get to decide the fate of all future humans.

                    1. Maybe if you whine like a bitch more, they’ll just shut down humanity so you can feel ok.

                  2. No one fucking bought it. Most people recognize climate change is happening we just disagree with how dangerous it is and how to address it.

                    Yes, people did buy it. I've been tracking this debate for over 20 years and there were plenty of people talking about how it was the urban heat island effect, the Earth isn't warming, Mars is warming too, but you don't see any Hummers there, they grew wine grapes in England during the Medieval Warm Period and Vikings named it Greenland a thousand years ago because it was green then, CO2 is life, not a pollutant, climate scientists are frauds that just want grant money - Climategate!, climate is always changing, global warming is on hiatus, it was global cooling in the 70's, so it's just a different alarmist fraud now, I have this snowball I got outside (in February), so that disproves the supposed crisis ... Did I miss any?

                    And if it was all in the past, that would be bad enough. You can see much of this here, now, in these comments. It is also beyond any doubt that various oil, gas, and coal companies (including the Koch's, that fund Reason itself) deliberately funded people that would give cherry-picked reasons to be "skeptical" knowing them to be disingenuous, at best.

                    People that were making money on fossil fuels spent pennies on the dollars of their profits to gin up controversy where there wasn't significant dispute among scientists that study the issue professionally. They aimed their arguments at people that would be ideologically inclined to believe them, knowing that they didn't need to 'win' the debate with objective facts and analysis among a broad majority of the population, let alone experts. They just needed to spread enough doubt to give cover to the politicians whose campaigns they fund, so that they could oppose any and all actions that might reduce their profits.

                    It is really kind of galling that Stossel published this article just days after the Florida legislative session ended. The legislature passed (and DeSantis is likely to sign) a bill to drastically reduce incentives for homeowners to install solar panels here. The bill, among other things, would allow utilities to give much less credit to customers whose solar panels feed back into the grid during the day. (Known as "net metering") There is something to basic argument that power companies still need to maintain the lines that hook up those homes and that those costs aren't part of the equation. But with a bill literally written by a power company and sponsored and pushed through by legislators that get campaign contributions from those companies, is it any wonder why The Sunshine State is behind states with far less sunshine in solar installation?

                    Stossel talking about subsidies for renewables while this kind of thing goes on is a sign that he is being duped or he is in on it.

                2. I’m waiting for the citation, and where you show why soldermedic76 is in on the scam. You did accuse him, not Exxon.

                  1. And try not to make one up this time.

        3. Fuck off. Climate change is real. We aren't going to stop it.
          And while it may make things uncomfortable for certain people in certain places it is far from an existential threat to humanity. We are a species that evolved in the tropics and has figured out how to live literally everywhere in the world where it is remotely possible for humans to survive. A slightly warmer climate isn't going to kill us.

          1. "We are a species that evolved in the tropics and has figured out how to live literally everywhere in the world where it is remotely possible for humans to survive. "

            We managed to do all that hundreds of thousands of years before we learned how to exploit fossil fuels.

        4. Dude, what the fuck do trans people have to do with anything?

          What is wrong with you?

          1. He doesn't know, he is just arguing against caricatures.

            Last week we were discussing transitioning for children and he thinks being opposed to transitioning for kids, especially pre-pubescent kids is the same as being anti-trans or being against biological males competing in female sports is anti trans. So he brings it up this week, at least his misunderstanding, I could care less what adults do with other consenting adults, but don't think kids are equipped to make those sorts of choices, because he thinks it's a gotcha.

          2. "...What is wrong with you?"

            He is profoundly stupid; so stupid he really doesn't know he is stupid, and his mommy said he was smart.

  15. Even Red state Texas was rushing to embrace Green power, and then discovered the downside when an unexpected winter storm hit last year.

    Blue state California is out in front on Green energy, so much so they have to hire children to hector us on TV to use less power between 4 and 9 PM, when renewable energy is less available, to help "keep California golden!" And they plan to actively make it worse, by mandating more electric cars to add to the grid, and banning natural gas appliances in new home construction, so the electric grid is even more overloaded, and so you have no home heat or ability to cook or hot water when the grid is down (which is often.)

    1. Even Red state Texas was rushing to embrace Green power, and then discovered the downside when an unexpected winter storm hit last year.

      Nice story. It just doesn't fit with the reality that it wasn't wind turbines or solar panels freezing that caused the problems. It was natural gas plants and distribution systems that weren't sufficiently winterized, because that would have cost money. Just for fun, I searched for something that would explain a bit more about what happened last year in Texas. I came across a blog from a ratchet company of all things. Kinda makes sense, I suppose, as ratchets and wrenches are pretty essential tools in working with pipes. I link it here, because it is hardly some lefty outlet's perspective, unless you think a hardware company that makes its tools in the U.S.A. and is proud of that would be in on the Marxist conspiracy. https://lowellcorp.com/what-caused-the-texas-power-outage/

      Even though he was trying to place blame on wind turbines, Texas U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw admitted the truth on Twitter: "ERCOT planned on 67GW from natural gas/coal, but could only get 43GW of it online. We didn’t run out of natural gas, but we ran out of the ability to get natural gas. Pipelines in Texas don’t use cold insulation – so things were freezing." That 25 GW from natural gas and coal that they fell short is more than the total they were planning to get from wind, by the way. (A large nuclear power plant went off the grid as well, by the way.)

      Just like thermal power plants (natural gas, coal, and nuclear), wind turbines can be winterized. But that costs money and Texas doesn't experience those kinds of temperatures often. While Texas was experiencing that, what happens in parts of the country that experience those temperatures every year? We don't hear about those states experiencing these problems because they plan for it, and some of them use a fair amount of wind as well. Of course, Texas' insistence on running its own grid to avoid federal regulation hurt it as well, since it couldn't get power from other states that would have had the ability to make up at least some of the shortfall.

      1. Sorry, math error - 24 GW shortfall.

  16. Fossil fuels powered the industrial revolution, and until very recently, 100% of modern life. Compared to how we live now, people in the past (and in unfortunate primitive parts of the modern world), had shorter life spans and much greater mortality, especially among the young. So, I figure at least 80% of the current population would be dead without coal and oil.

    Those who hate fossil fuels should kill themselves out of remorse.

    1. People don't understand this. When my great uncle got drafted during World War 2, my great grandfather had to sell off some of his milk cows, because he lost valuable labor and couldn't keep up, resulting in lower income for him and his family, despite higher milk prices due to war costs. They had ten kids, he was the oldest of the ten. If it had happened ten years later after the farm had electricity and a tractor, it wouldn't have impacted them much at all. When my Dad and his brother left home and joined the military in the late 70s and early 80s it didn't change my Grandparents standard of living at all (actually improved it) unlike what happened when my Grandpa's older brother was drafted under 40 years before.

  17. The funniest or most ironic thing is that windmills rely on petroleum for lubrication and require constant uptake, which requires work crews to travel to repair them in fossil fuel burning vehicles, because windmills aren't near the cities, they are in hard to reach areas like the front range of the Rockies, the Palouse and Columbia Gorge, the west Texas Plains. Areas where cows outnumber people by a significant amount. They also can't operate when the wind is too strong, which it often gets in these areas. They can't operate in low wind times or high wind times. Right now here in Northeast Montana, the sustained wind is 28 mph with wind gusts over 50 mph. With that kind of wind, windmills have to feather their blades to keep them from being destroyed.

    1. Another problem with windmills is they hum, and they cause a flicker which has unpleasant psychological effects on humans. I like the solid state windmills being developed in Holland. No moving parts! They apparently work like the reverse of a speaker which inputs electricity and outputs vibrations. Trust the Dutch to get serious when it comes to windmills.

  18. Fine article, and points I've been making for years about the victims and costs of "environmentalism". However, where does the "98%" number come from? That just sort of magically appears without either attribution or explanation of what it meant.

    But aside from that, it's fossil fuels or nuclear (fission) for now to the get job done for quite some while. Fusion may be great (I hope it is!), but it will likely have issues that we don't even know about now (or are not being told about).

    Frak baby! Frak!

    1. It still produces radiation and if it got out of control, once it's self sustaining the impact could be quite destructive and lethal.

      1. Fossil fuels are guaranteed to be lethal for the entire species. You keep skirting that issue.

        1. Says who, not most the scientist. They said the worse case scenarios you keep claiming are the least likely outcomes, at less than a 1.0% chance of happening. You keep skirting that. I never once denied climate change. I just disagreed with your unworkable solution for addressing it. I've stated that now at least twice so why do you keep arguing shit I never said or contended?

        2. 200-years and counting; Your 'lethal' Sci-Fiction imagination still hasn't materialized even though retards like you just keep pushing the 'end of the world' date out farther and farther and farther....

          You know what else is "lethal for the entire species". Spending their life's in massive stress over obvious lies and propaganda used to enslave them. Oh; and Nazi's... Do we have a body count on that one?

        3. Just for example why 2 C increase won't kill us, which is the most likely prediction according to the IPCC last review, that's about the same temperature as world experienced 1000 years ago. At that time Viking settlers grew wheat and barley in Greenland and Saxons grew wine grapes in England. Neither is currently possible because both climates are too cold to do either.

          1. Some humans may survive, and it may be few enough that they can't contribute to any more greenhouse warming.

            But as a conservative, you are particularly invested in the status quo. You can barely handle gay marriage, but I'm supposed to believe that you'll adapt to all the major cities being under water?

            1. I supported gay marriage since the early 2000s. I don't give a fuck who you marry. No, there isn't going to be a mass die off. Read the actual fucking science. If you did you would realize how fucking stupid and uninformed you sound. Not what MSNBC tells you but the actual IPCC report. I've read it, and you aren't even fucking close in your assertions to what it actually says.

            2. That's why Europe, in 1000 AD on an Earth that was 2 C warmer than today, had a growing population, actually the global population everywhere was growing until the 14th century when temperatures decreased during the little ice age. Study a fucking history book and what the actual scientist have written on the subject not the fear mongering from MSNBC. You just keep proving by your stupid talking points you don't even fucking understand what you are pontificating about.

              1. The science says the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet will be.

                1. And "sciences" explanation for the 2000 winter with record cold temperatures not broken since the 60s was????????? Oh yeah; Just another show of ignorance like the "climate science" always plays.. Because it's not "science" at all.

        4. No, you keep making infantile assertions unsupported by anything

    2. "Fine article, and points I've been making for years "

      It's a silly article which parrots dozens of other silly articles Reason publishes on the issue. And of course it's Stossel. My favorite was his idea to 3D print rhino horns to foil poachers. Anyone trying to palm off 3D printed rhino horn as the real thing is putting his/her life on the line.

      1. So is anyone poaching rhinos. God you are almost as stupid as Tony.

        1. "So is anyone poaching rhinos."

          It's risky business but lucrative. Some people sell heroin for a living, some rhino horn powder. Trying to palm off fake rhino horn as the real thing isn't risky business. It's extremely risky business. I wouldn't recommend it as a career path for young entrepreneurs, even if they have 3D printing equipment.

          1. Even if they have the trifecta of 3D printing equipment, a blockchain and a food truck.

  19. ""We have a 98 percent decline in climate-related disaster deaths over the last 100 years," Epstein points out."

    Show your work, Jeffrey!

    1. 1922 Pneumonia death rate 0.1335%
      2022 Pneumonia death rate 0.0144%
      = 89.2%

      Funny how 'show your work' or 'show the science' is always the scapegoat for leftards trying to defy something as plain as day.

      1. Are deaths from pneumonia "climate-related disaster deaths"?

        1. Depends on if your 'faith' is in Global Warming or Global Cooling or one could just make-up "Changing" and blame everything on either way.... 🙂

          Yeah; Global Cooling was indeed a Nazi pitched scare tactic back in the 70's right before Warming; but now it's just "Changing".... It's amazing how stupid 'political faith' can get.

        2. Before responding to this steaming pile of lefty shit, you need to read this:

          "JasonT20
          February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
          “How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”"

          Yes, this asshole supports murder as a preventative measure to keep someone from perhaps doing what the asshole doesn't like.
          That is the "intellect" you're dealing with.

    2. "Sevo is my bitch
      March.24.2022 at 4:05 pm"

      Fuck off and die, asshole.

  20. "I don't care if it's entirely unreasonable and unsustainable.. More Gov-Guns will defy natural laws.....", Screams every leftard...

    These people aren't here to make any sense at all; they're just here to empower their pathetic souls with Gov-Gun dictates.

    "Sell your Individual Souls to the [WE] foundation; because you don't own you, [WE] own you.......", Leftards repeat endlessly like a broken record...

    1. He do the police in different voices...

  21. Renewables have been subsidized for 40 years, not two.

    How long have fossil fuels been subsidized? How much are they subsidized now? How much is extracted from public lands and do governments really charge a market rate for that? How does this compare to subsidies for renewables like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric?

    Not being libertarian, I won't try and speak for anyone that is. If the goal is to end subsidies and let each source of energy compete on its own terms, then that would mean all subsidies, right? It would also mean that the negative consequences of each source would need to be factored in. How much value should we place on endangered and threatened birds of prey killed by wind turbines? How much will it cost to properly dispose of solar panels past their useful lifetimes? How much does air pollution from burning fossil fuels cost? How much do we spend cleaning up abandoned mines, trying to restore public lands and public health after oil spills and coal fly ash spills (see the Kingston Tennessee disaster)? How much does the health and lives of workers and people affected by pollution cost?

    Fossil fuels are "efficient" (Stossel's word) and effective and cheap now because we've been using them for so long that our industry, economy, and government polices are built around them. But that also means that entrenched interests currently making profit off of them have an incentive to work the system to be sure that any changes are delayed indefinitely.

    1. What a load of horsesh*t; government polices are built around wind and solar not fossil fuels. Good grief the Nazi's stated goal is to use Gov-Guns to destroy the gasoline car.... Is Denial-ism your 1st language?

      1. Not sure about denialism, but before responding to this steaming pile of lefty shit, you need to read this:

        "JasonT20
        February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
        “How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”"

        Yes, this asshole supports murder as a preventative measure to keep someone from perhaps doing what the asshole doesn't like.
        That is the "intellect" you're dealing with.

      2. " government polices are built around wind and solar not fossil fuels. Good grief the Nazi's stated goal is to use Gov-Guns to destroy the gasoline car."

        The government has the US navy police the Persian Gulf at tax payers' expense precisely to protect the security of the oil business, not the wind and sun interests.

        1. So now the left is throwing general police duty into fossil fuel subsidies??? What's next; public highways subsidize fossil fuels too? Scraping the bottom of the barrel to support their failure of an ideology I'd say.

          1. "So now the left is throwing general police duty into fossil fuel subsidies??"

            It costs money. So, yes.

            1. Right; The Fossil Fuel industry should employ their own police force..

              1. Why? American taxpayers, and morons like yourself, are happy to foot the bill.

                1. As-if the Fossil Fuel Industry was tax exempt. Stupidity at it's finest.

      3. The idea that Nazis were somehow against the gasoline car is seriously wrong. Hitler was a great car enthusiast, encouraged manufacturers to build affordable vehicles, gave Henry Ford the highest civilian honor the reich had to offer and began construction of a highway system that continued to soak up manpower and material long after it was obvious that Germany was losing the war.

        1. The DNC is the Nazi's in the USA; but keep that ignorance alive....

          1. The DNC under FDR and Truman waged a war against the Nazis after Pearl Harbor. Not only did the Nazis love automobiles, the Democrats mobilized the nation and sent thousands to wage war against Nazi Germany. You could really use a history book around now, so pathetically weak is your grasp on events of the last century.

            1. The German Nazi's didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.
              You could really use just a G.D. dictionary...
              Nazi - an acronym for National Socialism.
              Retaliation =/= A war of government ideology.
              FDR sunk this nation into a great depression.

              What does your Nazi History Book tell you?

              1. The idea that Nazis were against the automobile is ludicrous. You can't believe otherwise if you wish, however. Nazis declared war on America which was run by Democrat politicians at the time. You wish to believe otherwise, go ahead. You're obviously a moron. That is rude, I know, but I don't suffer fools gladly. Morons, even less gladly.

                1. lol... "Hitler didn't try to kill gasoline automobiles so Nazi's (National Socialists) aren't really Nazi's." -- You must be joking....

                  Out of some sort of cognitive dissonance that two Power-Mad National Socialists / National Communists gangs could possibly have a Power-War against each other...

                  Ya know like FDR passing the same types of policy as the German Nazi's but launching a war against the Nazi's..... No, no, no; not possible says the modern day Nazi trying to deny their Nazism beliefs. Ya know like passing racist legislation and calling it Anti-Racist or passing sexist legislation and calling it Anti-Sexist, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

                  You Nazi(National Socialist) believers are a contradiction in your own heads. Perhaps all that contradiction has cause brain-damage.

    2. "How long have fossil fuels been subsidized? How much are they subsidized now?"
      They are not subsidized; that's a lie lefty shits have been repeating forever. Like any business asset, they are amortized

      "...Fossil fuels are "efficient" (Stossel's word) and effective and cheap now because we've been using them for so long that our industry, economy, and government polices are built around them. But that also means that entrenched interests currently making profit off of them have an incentive to work the system to be sure that any changes are delayed indefinitely..."
      "[e]ntrenched interests" = society at large. As Stossel points out and this lefty asshole ignores, fossil fuels are a large reason for our current prosperity.
      Further, as a lying pile of lefty shit, he ignores that when a better solution shows up, the market will grab it quite rapidly.

  22. The Prestige City
    The Prestige City area on Sarjapur Road puts it exactly in the focal point of everything. Work- centers, seminaries, quality medical care services, shopping centers, and auberges are all within close reach. Also, at that point, obviously, the Forum shopping center is directly near with the stylish shopping, feasting, and recreation.

    The Prestige City focal association office, an expert, profoundly good administrative group uses slice- edge inventions and fabrics to guarantee that all serviceability, services, and conveniences work n" art-1" In particular satisfaction terms, this implies living in a perfect, indefectible climate where you're in finished agreement with nature.

  23. Tata One Bangalore Luxury is residential Project

  24. Prestige Aston Park is a community of elite apartment units located in high-rise towers that is a development of The Prestige City, Sarjapur road. The Prestige City is the upcoming township that is being developed by the Prestige Group in the scenic locales of Ittangur in South-East Bangalore. Spread over a vast land tract of 180 acres in total, this residential development has a wide variety of residential options available for the buyer, ranging from elegant one, two, three, and four-bedroom apartment units to a well-developed plotted development to high-end villas. The township will also have retail space in the form of a proposed Forum mall. The Prestige City is a smart, digital township that is designed to ease the stresses of life and enable its residents to enjoy a sophisticated and peaceful lifestyle, much needed in the bustling metropolis of Bangalore.
    https://www.prestigeastonpark.co.in/

  25. Tata Carnatica is a housing township project in bangalore. It comprises plots, villas, and apartments. Tata Carnatica

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.