Russia and the Global Green Energy Crisis: Live With Michael Shellenberger

A conversation with the author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All about what the war in Ukraine means for the push for renewables.

Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller | 10.6.2022 12:57 PM

Europe's embrace of renewable energy has made it heavily reliant on Russian gas and oil to fill gaps in the power supply. As Russian President Vladimir Putin's flailing invasion of Ukraine continues, and in the wake of the Nord Stream pipeline ruptures as Europeans approach winter, it's an especially urgent issue. Amid Europe's largest war since World War II, what is happening to the lofty goals of nations around the world to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels?

Watch live as Reason's Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller discuss the status of global green energy Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern time with Michael Shellenberger, author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

Join the Facebook event to watch live and submit questions during the show or join us on YouTube.

NEXT: Is a War on Policing Increasing Crime? Q&A with Rafael Mangual

Hide Comments (110)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Vernon Depner 2 years ago

Fuck Joe Biden

Log in to Reply
1. Its_Not_Inevitable 2 years ago
  
  Where's Jackie?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Kelly J. Hopkins 2 years ago (edited)
    
    In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. [res-09] Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
    .
    EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. AlfredaVidales 2 years ago
      
      I just worked part-time from my awartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able Haq to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
      .
      EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://jobopportunity22.blogspot.com
      
      Log in to Reply
Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP) 2 years ago

It is viciously ironic that being green and woke continues to amplify the power of polluters and bigots. It is almost like the whole thing is a scam being orchestrated by bad actors.

Log in to Reply
1. JesseAz 2 years ago
  
  Blinkin had an interview where he said it was great Germany and Europe would be forced to transition earlier after the pipe attacks. Amazing comment.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. BYODB 2 years ago
    
    Yeah, this is right up there with 'let them eat cake' in terms of disconnection with the proletariat.
    
    Something tells me 'let them freeze' will be taken about as well, although in fairness the proletariat are fine with the idea of infinite free energy with no repercussions they just aren't fine with reality.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. eva031david12 2 years ago (edited)
      
      Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35600 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28500 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
      
      Just open the link-------------------->>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
      
      Log in to Reply
2. DissapointedLion 2 years ago
  
  "Woke" being disingenuos (at best)? affirmative.
  Trying to not boil this planet? um.. unless you get your share from Big Oil I don't get why no longer relying on fuels that brought nothing but trouble is such a terrible thing...
  
  Log in to Reply
sarcasmic 2 years ago

Only leftists talk about reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

Log in to Reply
1. Outlaw Josey Wales 2 years ago
  
  Can't argue with that. Though the talk is more about eliminating fossil fuels without a clear understanding of how many other things besides car engines would be affected by that move.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. DissapointedLion 2 years ago
  
  Please, save us from your "rest of the world, is it edible?" crap.
  
  Log in to Reply
mtrueman 2 years ago

"Europe's embrace of renewable energy has made it heavily reliant on Russian gas and oil to fill gaps in the power supply."

Europe embraced fossil fuel long ago, burned through its coal, gas and oil reserves, now working on Russia's. Until this business in Ukraine proved how the embrace of fossil fuel is a dangerous thing.

Log in to Reply
1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 2 years ago
  
  They have plenty of fossil fuel reserves. They just ignore them.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. mtrueman 2 years ago
    
    "They have plenty of fossil fuel reserves. "
    
    UK and Norway reserves of gas are dwindling. Russia, Iran, Turkmenistan have plenty of gas reserves. They are bad countries, though. Rely of fossil fuels at your peril.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 2 years ago
      
      Germany and the UK have plenty of fracking potential.
      
      As for peril ... jeez you ignore reality which DOES rely on fossil fuels in favor of the impossibility of relying on renewables.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "Germany and the UK have plenty of fracking potential."
        
        For fossil fuels. CO2 and methane emissions, in other words. What part of the phrase 'climate change' don't you understand?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Bill Dalasio 2 years ago
        
        So, in other words, your initial argument was nothing more than a smokescreen for your actual argument.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        Reliance on burning fossil fuels can be dangerous for more than one reason. There's the CO2 you've heard about, also other by products which are toxic to humans and animals, there's also the fact that areas that rely on extracting fossil fuels become perpetual meat grinders like the Middle East and now Russia has joined the party.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. Rossami 2 years ago
      
      Given that any use at all means that resources are "dwindling" at least a little, I guess your statement is true. It is misleading, however, because the North Sea reserves are still quite large. The most reliable estimates I could quickly find suggest that if drilling were resumed at scale, there are probably 35 years worth of production remaining. It is nowhere close to accurate to say Europe "has burned through" those reserves.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "The most reliable estimates I could quickly find suggest that if drilling were resumed at scale, there are probably 35 years worth of production remaining."
        
        Doesn't it take the Europeans something close to 35 years to build a single nuclear reactor? And that's during economic good times.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        damikesc 2 years ago
        
        Due to environmentalists.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        You want quick and dirty nuclear reactors? Forget Europe, China is where the action is.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        damikesc 2 years ago
        
        You snarked about it taking 35 years to build a nuclear plant. I was advising you WHY it takes 35 years. It's not like we do not know how to make safe nuclear reactors.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        It's the operators I worry about. Just about every nuclear accident in history has been put down to human error.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Sevo 2 years ago
        
        "...Just about every nuclear accident in history has been put down to human error..."
        
        Yes, and they are SOOOO dangerous!
        
        "..To put these numbers into perspective, in 70 years and with a total of 667 nuclear power plants that have ever operated, only three major accidents have taken place. Using the official internationally-recognized death statistics for Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, the combined loss of lives from the three major nuclear accidents is 32 people..."
        https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources
        
        Fuck off, chicken little
        
        DissapointedLion 2 years ago
        
        Less so (non-radical) enviromentalist (no quote marks in this case), and more the scientifically uneducated.
        
        Our problem is not enviromentalism, is the "postmodern" bullshit that believes "opinions>facts".
        
        Log in to Reply
    3. NOYB2 2 years ago
      
      UK and Norway reserves of gas are dwindling.
      
      Europe has massive fossil fuel reserves.
      
      Rely of fossil fuels at your peril.
      
      The alternative is to return to the pre-industrial age; there is no alternative to fossil fuels at this point.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "The alternative is to return to the pre-industrial age; there is no alternative to fossil fuels at this point."
        
        Socialism is the more likely alternative. China and India, not blessed with an abundance of fossil fuels, but home to half the world's population, and heritage of vegetarianism, will lead the way. You may prefer to return to the caves out of spite, but other voices will prevail.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Square = Circle 2 years ago
        
        China and India, not blessed with an abundance of fossil fuels, but home to half the world’s population, and heritage of vegetarianism, will lead the way.
        
        So far they lead the world in CO2 emissions. Why are we expecting that to change?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "So far they lead the world in CO2 emissions."
        
        What part of the phrase 'half the world's population' didn't you understand?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Square = Circle 2 years ago
        
        What part of the phrase ‘half the world’s population’ didn’t you understand?
        
        The part that read "Socialism is the more likely alternative."
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        'There is no alternative' is an idea that provides comfort to many here. I think first enunciated by Thatcher in defense of neo-liberal market fundamentalism.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 2 years ago
        
        ‘There is no alternative’ is an idea that provides comfort to many here.
        
        No, it's a simple, scientific statement: there are two forms of energy generation available as the basis for a modern, industrial society: fossil fuels and nuclear. No other forms of energy generation are available. That's a fact.
        
        Socialism can't change that fact.
        
        DissapointedLion 2 years ago
        
        Uhhh... relevance? how is having a large population going to change the totalitarian behaviour of the CCP?
        
        If Winnie Pooh decides to go for green it's certainly not happening soon, nor out of good will.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 2 years ago
        
        Socialism is the more likely alternative.
        
        If you think that socialist governments give a sh*t about the environment, you really haven't been paying attention to a century of socialism.
        
        The only reason China talks a lot about "green energy" is because it's a way they can manipulate Western voters like you into economic self-destruction of the West.
        
        China, like all socialist nations, is an environmental disaster area.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DissapointedLion 2 years ago
        
        "there are two forms of energy generation available ...: fossil fuels and nuclear. No other forms of energy generation are available. That’s an opinion."
        
        -FTFY
        
        Don't get me wrong, I hate the 99% Orwellian regime of the CCP as everyone else, but it's Trump who is closer to being their loyal servant, not the public.
        
        Log in to Reply
2. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 2 years ago (edited)
  
  the lofty goals of nations around the world to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels
  
  Lofty as in high as a kite? Lofty as in high-handed? Lofty as in above the peasants?
  
  ETA not meant as a reply; clicked wrong button.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. mtrueman 2 years ago
    
    "Lofty as in high as a kite?"
    
    Lofty as in difficult to reach. Replacing fossil fuels with other sources of energy will require an enormous investment in money and commitment of resources. It's not for the faint of heart or the acrophobic.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 2 years ago
      
      Lofty as in whooooosh
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. NOYB2 2 years ago
      
      Lofty as in difficult to reach.
      
      "Lofty" as in "impossible".
      
      Replacing fossil fuels with other sources of energy will require an enormous investment in money and commitment of resources.
      
      Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear is possible to a significant degree; that doesn't require an "enormous investment", we could do that today.
      
      Beyond that, saying it "requires an enormous investment" starts from the false premise that after you make the investment, you'll end up with energy sources that are as cheap and abundant as fossil and nuclear, and that premise is false.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear is possible to a significant degree; that doesn’t require an “enormous investment”, we could do that today."
        
        You're surely joking. It would take trillions, if not quadrillions of dollars.
        
        "you’ll end up with energy sources that are as cheap and abundant as fossil and nuclear, and that premise is false."
        
        It's cheap and abundant energy sources that are the problem. It's clean energy that is called for, and that's going to cost. Sorry. I never promised you a rose garden.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        rev-arthur-l-kuckland 2 years ago
        
        Do you honestly believe the retard crap that spews out of you?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        Honestly and sincerely, for the most part.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Sevo 2 years ago
        
        So we'll go with "stupid".
        What do you think it would cost to replace fossil fuels, any other way?
        Are you really that stupid?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 2 years ago
        
        You’re surely joking. It would take trillions, if not quadrillions of dollars.
        
        Nuclear energy is about the same cost per MWh as fossil fuel, and it would get substantially cheaper as we built more plants. So, it is something we could do today, by replacing aging fossil fuel power plants with nuclear plants.
        
        It’s clean energy that is called for, and that’s going to cost.
        
        Nuclear energy is clean energy. Wind and solar, not so much, given the huge amount of wast and land they require, and the environmental destruction that entails.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DissapointedLion 2 years ago
        
        Hard agree on nuclear, but please stop spewing the crap of the hypocrite of Alan Moore and his "aLl cApItAlIsTZZZ muZt dI3Zz" unscientific nonsense.
        
        You're supposed to be on the far-right, not on the far-left... oh sorry, I forgot the horseshoe effect.
        
        Log in to Reply
3. Its_Not_Inevitable 2 years ago
  
  Could be why international free trade is a good thing.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. mtrueman 2 years ago
    
    "international free trade is a good thing."
    
    A very good thing for our multinationals. Next to meaningless if you're a German freezing in the dark.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. NOYB2 2 years ago
      
      The German government chose to fight Russia and they are paying the price now. They only have themselves to blame.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        Blaming yourself won't warm you in the winter.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Beezard 2 years ago
        
        Neither will windmills.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        Humans and animals and plants have been exploiting energy from wind for as long as humans, animals and plants have been around. They continue to do so today. Only a moron would ignore this valuable source for purely ideological reasons.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Sevo 2 years ago
        
        At a level 1/100th of our current level of prosperity, jackass.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DissapointedLion 2 years ago
        
        Source? please let it be one other than your anus.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 2 years ago
        
        Humans and animals and plants have been exploiting energy from wind for as long as humans, animals and plants have been around.
        
        Literally zero biological organisms meet their energy needs from wind.
        
        Only a moron would ignore this valuable source for purely ideological reasons.
        
        I love using the wind for transportation: we call that "sailing" and "gliding". But wind energy is not feasible as the basis of a modern industrialized society.
        
        Only a moron would reject nuclear energy as an energy source for purely ideological reasons, and that's what you are.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. DissapointedLion 2 years ago
        
        Soooo, "Heil Putin"?
        
        How in Arceus butt did we got to a society that literally worships bullies this much, oh I forgot, Dragon Ball Z fried your brain with it's GETTING STRONGER IS ALL THAT MATTERS DESTROY AND SUBJUGATE YOUR ENEMIES crap.
        
        Log in to Reply
4. TheReEncogitationer 2 years ago
  
  You dumb-ass!
  
  Both Denmark and the UK drill for oil in The North Sea and Denmark even has a Sovereign Wealth Fund for it's Citizens funded by oil! (Not that this is a legitimate role of a Libertarian limited government, but it gives an idea of how lucrative and plentiful oil is.)
  
  And before it broke into Continents, the dinosaurs and other beasts from which petroleum derives all lived tens and hundreds of millions of years ago on the single Super-Continental land mass called Pangaea. That means potentially every Continent has petroleum if you drill deep enough!
  
  All of Europe and every other nation should work on finding oil!...And ignore Watermelon Rickshaw Boys like you!
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. mtrueman 2 years ago
    
    "All of Europe and every other nation should work on finding oil!"
    
    Oil is dirty and burning it causing CO2 emissions. Try to keep up.
    
    Log in to Reply
MWAocdoc 2 years ago

The issue here is not whether renewable energy is or is not a good idea. He issue here is whether - and to what extent - governments should set energy policies or promote particular energy goals. Given the fact that governments almost never get it right and don't do a good job even when their policy goals are probably good, the answer is "don't promote renewable energy or discourage fossil fuels!"

Log in to Reply
1. mtrueman 2 years ago
  
  "Given the fact that governments almost never get it right and don’t do a good job even when their policy goals are probably good,"
  
  You think letting the oil companies setting energy policy is better? They have an interest is keeping the status quo and continuing to extract, process and sell fossil fuels which inevitably lead to CO2 emissions. I understand throwing your hands up on government, democracy, science, medicine etc, but the idea that our oil companies are going to step up and pull our chestnuts from the fire is naive and slavish.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Outlaw Josey Wales 2 years ago
    
    The markets would be a happy medium there Mr. Truthiness.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. mtrueman 2 years ago
      
      Also naive and slavish. Markets left to their own devices would continue to do what our oil companies want done - turning the oceans and atmosphere into a free dumping ground for their unwanted by-products.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. NOYB2 2 years ago
        
        Also naive and slavish. Markets left to their own devices would continue to do what our oil companies want done – turning the oceans and atmosphere into a free dumping ground for their unwanted by-products.
        
        Markets do that because that's what the people vote for, both with their dollars and democratically.
        
        And the people vote for that because deep down they realize that carbon emissions and plastic waste are actually not particularly dangerous, but that wrecking the world economy by interfering with energy markets will cost millions of lives every year.
        
        It is people like you who want to impose your bizarre eco-fantasies as policy on the entire world population and you don't care who you kill in the process.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "And the people vote for that because deep down"
        
        Deep down? Are you serious?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 2 years ago
        
        Deep down? Are you serious?
        
        Yes: unlike the shallow, uninformed platitudes and propaganda that you like to parrot, most people don't need to think a lot to realize the obvious fact that if we want to continue to have a modern, industrialized society, we need to continue to burn fossil fuels for now.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DissapointedLion 2 years ago
        
        "Markets do that because that’s what the people vote for, both with their dollars and democratically."
        
        So I must tolerate Wokellywood and the anual FIFAs, MADDENs, and Dragon Ball Quests in videogames because it's "the people's opinion".
        
        You're giving nuke launching codes to those who believe Totalitarianism (ex. Putin or Xinping) is our answer.
        
        I've seen "voting with your wallet" fail in ways so spectacular, that SOCIETY would need a severe Paradigm Shift for me to believe in such idiocy again.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. Outlaw Josey Wales 2 years ago
        
        Not true. People are flocking to the new technology because it serves some underlying need they want fulfilled. Also, how can your green world exist without the many products that use oil as a component.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "People are flocking to the new technology because it serves some underlying need they want fulfilled. "
        
        That sounds suspiciously like something an economist might say.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Outlaw Josey Wales 2 years ago
        
        Why else do they buy or buy into products or ideas? If you think the utopian 'greater good' is going to save the world you should revisit your history lessons for some good ole eye openin'.
        
        Or go watch Ready Player One. Dystopia with a virtual utopia. Everyone is happy and you own nothing.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "Why else do they buy or buy into products or ideas? "
        
        Why indeed?
        
        "If you think the utopian ‘greater good’ is going to save the world you should revisit your history lessons for some good ole eye openin’."
        
        The world will be fine. It's human civilization that is at risk. A few pandemics, famines, and wars could do the trick.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Beezard 2 years ago
        
        “The world will be fine. It’s human civilization that is at risk. A few pandemics, famines, and wars could do the trick.”
        
        So why are we rushing to lower the standard of living and population via socialist state action when events will eventually reset the equation anyway?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        Socialists want it now. They are not willing to let nature take its course. That's why they are so keen on weaning society from burning fossil fuels.
        
        Use the Schwartz 2 years ago
        
        "The world will be fine. It’s human civilization that is at risk. A few pandemics, famines, and wars could do the trick."
        
        Scratch an environmentalist and you'll find a Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        MWAocdoc 2 years ago
        
        If people actually ARE "flocking to new technology" then there would be no need for government to encourage the change. Just as people flocked to whale oil from candles and wood stoves; and then flocked to coal; and then to oil and gas; and then to nuclear; if people flock to renewable energy you don't have to ban fossil fuels. So your argument is self-destroying and circular. On the other hand, if people aren't flocking to renewable energy then maybe they're too smart to fall for the green socialist proxy propaganda.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "if people flock to renewable energy you don’t have to ban fossil fuels."
        
        Many are ideologically committed to fossil fuels. Just read the comments here.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 2 years ago
        
        Many are ideologically committed to fossil fuels. Just read the comments here.
        
        No, we are committed to fossil fuels and nuclear because of scientific facts: those are the only energy sources that can support a modern, industrialized economy.
        
        You reject scientific facts and instead promote energy policy based on ideology and fiction.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Outlaw Josey Wales 2 years ago
        
        Couldn't agree more. I see no need for government interference. People can and will decide whether to embrace the new technology or not. Markets and marketing have their role in the process. The result will be a new set of unintended consequences that follow. For example, maybe your skyline is now lined with massive wind turbines or your backyard can't be used because you are forced to fill it with sun panels as part of participation in the existing grid. It will all work towards the greater good, the greater good being not affecting the elites need to not have any of that nonsense in their yards and skylines.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "Markets and marketing have their role in the process. "
        
        Markets have their limits. What are the market forces that prevent us from using the commons as a convenient dumping grounds, for an example. I think your faith in markets to solve the problems we face is naive, slavish and ideologically motivated rather than carefully thought through.
        
        The market solutions to climate change I've heard bruited about are clearly inadequate. We're not going to get rich buying and selling each other our sequestered carbon. It's an absurd notion. This is why the Socialists will eventually have their way if we seriously get to addressing the issue.
        
        "For example, maybe your skyline is now lined with massive wind turbines or your backyard can’t be used because you are forced to fill it with sun panels as part of participation in the existing grid."
        
        If you want electricity should be willing to pay the consequences. Oil drilling rigs spoil the skyline of those who live in oil producing areas as well as other unpleasant factors like noise and pollution. It's naive or disingenuous to demand that renewables ought to be free of those kind of consequences.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        NOYB2 2 years ago
        
        This is why the Socialists will eventually have their way if we seriously get to addressing the issue.
        
        If you think that socialists are preventing destruction of the commons, you really haven't been paying attention to more than a century of socialism: socialist governments have been the worst destroyers of the environment, the worst polluters in the history of humanity.
        
        Markets have their limits. What are the market forces that prevent us from using the commons as a convenient dumping grounds
        
        What prevents us from doing that is the fact that our government is allowing this to happen by defining certain areas to be "common".
        
        Oil drilling rigs spoil the skyline of those who live in oil producing areas as well as other unpleasant factors like noise and pollution
        
        And in a purely market-driven environment, those kinds of issues would be settled contractually and via arbitration. Instead, under the semi-socialist/semi-fascist government we live under, if the government says that there shall be an oil drilling rig in front of your beach house or a bunch of gigantic windmills behind your home, there will be, and there is nothing you can do about it.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DissapointedLion 2 years ago
        
        "On the other hand, if people aren’t flocking to renewable energy then maybe they’re too smart to fall for the green socialist proxy propaganda."
        
        I'm green, and I call Marx as less of a scientist as fucking Freud or Wakefield. Hell, I'd rather believe Nostradamus, something something broken clock something.
        
        Or would you prefer me bringing up how the rest of the world (no, it's not edible) sees the USA as a failed state these days, "iF pEoPlE vIlIb iT iT mUzT vI tRu".
        
        I repeat, I would personally punch Marx' shitty face as hard as Hitler's. THIS IS NOT PROPANGANDA, IT'S FUCKING SCIENCE.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Use the Schwartz 2 years ago (edited)
        
        “Or would you prefer me bringing up how the rest of the world (no, it’s not edible) sees the USA as a failed state these days.”
        
        The rest of the world are either on the brink of war, freezing to death, or client states in denial.
        
        If the “failed” US stopped all foreign welfare the world economy would collapse.
        
        So bring it up all you want, I need some humor in my life.
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 2 years ago
    
    Oil companies don't set energy policies, consumers do.
    
    Fucking progressives ignore individuals at our peril. Go study some basic econ 101.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. mtrueman 2 years ago
      
      "Oil companies don’t set energy policies, consumers do."
      
      All those oil lobbyists showering money on our politicians are simply laughing at your slavish naivete.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Square = Circle 2 years ago
        
        All those oil lobbyists showering money on our politicians
        
        How much money, exactly?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "How much money, exactly?"
        
        Exactly. As Trotsky noted, some questions answer themselves.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Square = Circle 2 years ago
        
        As Trotsky noted, some questions answer themselves.
        
        But not the one I asked.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        I doubt there is an 'exact answer' to your question. And Trotsky agrees.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. MWAocdoc 2 years ago
        
        Don't be any sillier than you have to be. If oil lobbyists are setting energy policy it's because YOU gave politicians the authority to set energy policy and the oil lobbyists are buying corrupt politicians. The cure for that is to stop letting politicians set energy policy. Then oil lobbyists have no reason to buy politicians and the people will get what they buy. Aside from the fact that I don't believe the global warming - er - I mean "climate change" doom-sayers in the first place, we're right back to the "government is not very good at it" point I made initially.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        " The cure for that is to stop letting politicians set energy policy."
        
        Kumbaya, comrade.
        
        "Aside from the fact that I don’t believe the global warming"
        
        Mother nature doesn't care what you believe. You can believe that there is no such thing as the green house effect, and she will carry on regardless.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Outlaw Josey Wales 2 years ago
        
        Exactly. You too can believe that all of this posturing and lifestyle changes will affect global climate warming cooling storming change and Mother Nature will continue to carry on as she always has.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        mtrueman 2 years ago
        
        "You too can believe that all of this posturing and lifestyle changes "
        
        The posturing and life style changes are irrelevant to the issue. Concentrate on CO2 content in the atmosphere and oceans. That's where the green house effect comes into play. These gases trap heat and warm the climate.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Sevo 2 years ago
        
        "...Mother nature doesn’t care what you believe. You can believe that there is no such thing as the green house effect, and she will carry on regardless..."
        
        None of which suggests the 'solutions' you prefer, watermelon.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DissapointedLion 2 years ago
        
        While it´s true that a lot of alarmism is both misinforming and unhelpfull, to claim it is the entirety of themovement is stright up false.
        
        If YOU were the USA president when 9/11, YOU would have nuked the entire Middle East.
        
        Log in to Reply
      3. NOYB2 2 years ago
        
        All those oil lobbyists showering money on our politicians are simply laughing at your slavish naivete.
        
        All those green energy and Chinese lobbyists showing money on our politicians are simply laughing at your slavish naivete.
        
        They are also laughing at the fact that the billions of dollars they have spent on propaganda and marketing have gotten fools like you to believe their nonsense.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. DissapointedLion 2 years ago
      
      "Oil companies don’t set energy policies, consumers do."
      
      If people hold so much power, explain why I have to say "Taiwan, China" or "Hong Kong, China" to "not hurt the feelings of the chinese people".
      
      On the other hand, every 20th and 21st century dictaror has been chosen democratically. Society is a scam and YOU know it.
      
      Progressives my ass, it's your DBZtard SOCIETY obssesed with power and believing oneself as "the superior -Aryan- Saiyan" that is killing the individuals.
      
      Log in to Reply
  3. NOYB2 2 years ago
    
    You think letting the oil companies setting energy policy is better? They have an interest is keeping the status quo and continuing to extract, process and sell fossil fuels which inevitably lead to CO2 emissions.
    
    Oil companies don't "set policy", they offer a product, a product that provides energy cheaply and reliably. If you want their product to disappear from the market, you need to offer energy cheaper than they do. The problem is: nobody can.
    
    I understand throwing your hands up on government, democracy, science, medicine etc
    
    You "understand that" because that's what you're doing: you're ignoring basic scientific facts.
    
    but the idea that our oil companies are going to step up and pull our chestnuts from the fire is naive and slavish
    
    Oil companies are "pulling our chestnuts from the fire" by continuing to provide fossil fuels cheaply and reliably, unscientific idiots like you trying to use the jackboot of government against them notwithstanding.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. mtrueman 2 years ago
      
      "Oil companies don’t “set policy”,"
      
      I disagree.
      
      "Oil companies are “pulling our chestnuts from the fire”
      
      They are not. They are contributing to CO2 emissions constantly and bigly. They are adding more chestnuts.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Sevo 2 years ago
        
        "...They are not. They are contributing to CO2 emissions constantly and bigly. They are adding more chestnuts."
        
        Assertions from lefty piles of shit =/= arguments or evidence.
        Fuck off and die, watermelon.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DissapointedLion 2 years ago
        
        Ad hominem attack, their not even bringing the left to that particular response.
        
        Also you yourself are not bringin ANY evidence.
        
        And before you try to smear me as "leftist shit", I repeat that I would punch Marx' face, or any other pseudoscientific maniac for that matter.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. NOYB2 2 years ago
        
        “Oil companies don’t “set policy”,”
        I disagree.
        
        Well, you have proven time and again that you live in an alternate reality. But in the US and in Europe, policy is set by our elected representatives. Oil companies lobby them, just like green energy companies, and all sorts of other companies do.
        
        “Oil companies are “pulling our chestnuts from the fire”
        They are not. They are contributing to CO2 emissions constantly and bigly. They are adding more chestnuts.
        
        Oil companies are not significantly "contributing to CO2 emissions", they are simply providing fossil fuel. Their customers create CO2 emissions by purchasing their products in favor to other energy sources.
        
        In any case, while I certainly believe that CO2 emissions lead to global warming, it doesn't bother me and I don't care.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DissapointedLion 2 years ago
        
        1. So this person is wrong in a technicallity, this is far from the worst take they've taken, I don't understand why this is so insidious to you.
        
        2. "Oil companies are not significantly “contributing to CO2 emissions”, they are simply providing fossil fuel"
        
        You've said it yourself: "Well, you have proven time and again that you live in an alternate reality".
        
        3. "In any case, while I certainly believe that CO2 emissions lead to global warming, it doesn’t bother me and I don’t care."
        
        Then why the hell respond in the first place?
        
        And I envy you on it, I'd KILL for not having to worry about this scam called SOCIETY, but no, your "oPiNiOnS" keep screwing me over time and time again.
        
        You wanna know something? If it was by me... if I could, I would rebuild Auschwitz, and put every. single. lifeform. there. I'm TIRED of your bullshit, of ALL of you.
        
        Log in to Reply
Utkonos 2 years ago

You know who else set “lofty” goals which left Europe in shambles?

Log in to Reply
JFree 2 years ago

Jeezus. Who the fuck can waste one and a half HOURS watching/listening to a youtube? This could be a very interesting topic - connecting different energy sources and their security implications and the transition risks. But since there is no reason ahead of time to assume this time is useful, I ain't gonna bother. Does anyone watch these hour-long shows?

Log in to Reply
1. Beezard 2 years ago
  
  Guess you don’t Lex or Rogan much.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. Vernon Depner 2 years ago
  
  I have a job that allows me to listen to talk shows downloaded to my MP3 player while I work. Otherwise, I wouldn't take the time to listen to such programs.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. mtrueman 2 years ago
    
    I read Shellenberger's book. I doubt he's saying anything substantially different in the interview. In the book he advocates rich Western countries to subsidize coal exploitation in Africa so they can become rich and clean, just like us. I shit you not.
    
    Log in to Reply
Sevo 2 years ago

"Europe's embrace of renewable energy has made it heavily reliant on Russian gas and oil to fill gaps in the power supply."

Translation from watermelon cant:
"The Euro's magical thinking has bit them in the ass.

Log in to Reply
DissapointedLion 2 years ago

As my username suggests, I'm extremely dissapointed in humanity today, people would rather cling on their dogmas, or axioms as they call those nowadays, rather than science and facts... Fuck Postmodernism.

Instead of being:

Left: We're polluting, no more oil.
Right: But what about business and people's livelihoods?
Left: Why not try these alternatives?
Right:Seems right, cheaper even!
Both: Hey goverment, stopt these specific corps doing these specific things, and allow for these other to replace them, but no dictatorships, we're watching you.
Goberment: Ok.

Instead, the Right is still stuck with Left's "Cultural Marxism" and other Conspiretard "theories", and the Left accuses the Right of Dragon Ball Z-tardist obsesion with "Super I'm superior cuz I scrim louder-yan" or whatever.

You're both right, and wrong, can we drop all the retarded bullshit and work on what's actually important now?

Of course no, at best I'll get silenced, at worst some of you would try a hitman... Days like this... make me wish I could hurl Earth on a direct collision with the Sun. Fix the problem at it's root...

Log in to Reply
Bill Godshall 2 years ago

Excellent interview.

Shellenberger and Lomborg have delineated how the far left wing environmental extremists are imposing disastrous policies on Europe, America and the rest of the civilized world.

Log in to Reply
21Inspiration 2 years ago

When it will over?

Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

Russia and the Global Green Energy Crisis: Live With Michael Shellenberger

A conversation with the author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All about what the war in Ukraine means for the push for renewables.

Latest

Yanking the Funds

15 Years of Super PACs

Alaska Poised To Beg for Relief From Crippling Federal Shipping Restrictions

Brickbat: Lawn Sign Litigation

Texas A&M's Drag Ban Shows the Threat to Campus Free Speech Is Bipartisan

Recommended

Login Form