Most smart people have taught to ignore the massive benefits of fossil fuel use and catastrophize its side-effects. This renders them dumb and, worse, dangerous on this issue. A good case study here is the latest NYT article by the very smart @EzraKlein.
One way in which @EzraKlein and most other thought leaders both ignore the benefits and catastrophize the side-effects of fossil fuels is by denying the fossil fueled *climate mastery* that has occurred as temps have risen 1 degree in 170 years.
The climate mastery denial of @EzraKlein leads him to the unbelievable conclusion that "three degrees" of warming--which really means two, because one has already occurred--"is still a catastrophe of truly incomprehensible proportions" for the most adaptable species ever.
In @EzraKlein's article there is no mention of the uniquely low-cost, on-demand, versatile, global-scale energy we get from fossil fuels, and its life-changing benefits--only negative side-effects. This is like writing about the Covid-19 vaccine and only mentioning side-effects.
In @EzraKlein's article there is no mention of the fact that billions of people lack the low-cost, reliable energy they need to flourish--including to protect themselves from climate, which is always catastrophically dangerous to those who lack energy.
Former CA Assemblyman @ChuckDeVore, one of my favorite energy commentators, has a great new piece in @FDRLST explaining how CA's pro-unreliables policies not only hurt us but our neighbors.
"California’s politically driven renewable energy mandates are likely to cause more blackouts this summer outside of CA after a remarkable ruling by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that allows CA to hijack electricity that Arizona already contracted to receive."
"Fearful of blackouts this summer that might affect the Sept. 14 recall election targeting Gov. Gavin Newsom, California’s grid operators are buying up power around the West. This prompted Arizona officials to warn that California’s actions may lead to blackouts in Arizona..."
A 1976 @NyTimes feature on catastrophist Stephen Schneider falsely described him as "reflecting the consensus of the climatological community": "The climate is going to get unreliable. It is going to get cold. Harvest failures and regional famines will be more frequent."
"Climatologists....can predict what temperature averages and extremes to expect over the next 10, 20, or 30 years...And they are predicting greater fluctuations, and a cooling trend for the northern hemisphere."
It is wonderful to see courageous Cubans fighting for freedom from their oppressive socialist regime. One of many areas where freedom would transform Cuba is in the realm of energy, where socialist policies are destroying enormous potential.
THREAD
Cuba holds over 7% of the proven reserves of cobalt, about 500,000 metric tons, the third largest known deposit after Congo and Australia. Yet In 2020 it mined less than 5,000 metric tons.
Cobalt is traded internationally for about $50k per ton. Increasing Cuba’s output with free enterprise investment could create hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in export revenue and create productive, well-paying jobs for Cubans.
I live in CA, a state that, as a result of its "clean energy standard," which favors unreliable electricity, just announced a Stage 2 Power Grid Emergency.
And yet The @Guardian assures us that a far more aggressive nationwide "clean energy standard" will work out great.
To learn about California's disastrous electricity policy and why it's a terrible to do a doubled-down national version, read this: energytalkingpoints.com/california-bla…
I held a contest to refute this @BernieSanders claim:
“The USA put people on the moon 50 years ago. We can sure as hell transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to 100% renewables today and create millions of jobs in the process.”
This response captures my essential answer, which is that BS's statement conflates a technological achievement (making something work at any cost) with an economic achievement (making something work cost-effectively for the masses).
I love this response, which cracked me up and saddened me at the same time. It alludes to the difference between a technological and economic achievement, but does so with a devastating depiction of a "100% renewable world."