Energy Policy: Taking a Stand Against Fossil Fuels

Energy Policy: Taking a Stand Against Fossil Fuels I recently instructed the U.S. (as if it takes my instructions) to tell the world:

America as a country, and a heck of an impressive one at that, is proving its moral goodness by phasing out fossil fuels at the maximum practical pace.  We’re doing this largely because we’ve become aware of the huge externalities associated with coal, oil, and natural gas vis-a-vis health and the environment.

We have different strategies for each of the three, and we’ll be most aggressive with coal since it’s the most harmful. As we make our way through these processes, we’re going to do what we can to help other countries achieve the same benefits, prioritizing those with huge carbon footprints.

Frequent commenter MarcoPolo, who believes that this is politically and economically unfeasible, has his own set of suggestions that include government support of nuclear and carbon sequestration.

I suppose all I can say is, “We’ll see.”  What we’re about to notice is:

• The forces of pure market economics, mainly the falling levelized cost of energy for renewable energy, which will make coal and oil obsolete over an astonishingly short period of time; this is the theme of my recent book: “Bullish on Renewable Energy.”

and

• The rising concern about the health/environmental fall-out from fossil fuels which can do nothing but accelerate this process even further.

Very few people dispute that these phenomena are, in fact, driving a migration in the favor of clean energy; at issue, however, is how fast it’s happening.  In the circles in which I travel, e.g., the folks with their multi-billion-dollar private equity funds at the Low Carbon Investors conference, I get the sense that this is happening far faster than most people realize.  As a fellow told me at lunch: “We’re going where the money is.”

As a side note, I believe that carbon sequestration is a non-starter; we have a far greater opportunity to move to a low-carbon economy than we do perpetuating our dependence on fossil fuels and capturing the carbon.

 

 

 

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
15 comments on “Energy Policy: Taking a Stand Against Fossil Fuels
  1. Les Blevins says:

    My firm is offering the power generation industry a practical way to repower our nation and the world with low-carbon energy and with energy that comes with practical energy storage and with carbon sequestration and thus it’s a viable way to bridge the gap from where we are today to where we need to be in the next decade. Contact me here or by email for more info.

    Here is a notice I’ve posted on Facebook and elsewhere.

    COLLABORATORS, STRATEGIC ALLIANCES AND/OR INVESTMENT NEEDED FOR NOVEL NEW CONCEPT GLOBAL REPOWERING TECHNOLOGY. AAEC WILL PROVIDE MORE DETAILS ON REQUEST.

    AAEC has invented, patented, tested and further developed a new concept low-carbon energy technology we’ve designed for serving as the core technology for far cleaner renewable energy production systems and energy efficiency improvements across the American landscape and around the world. AAEC’s novel new concept technology consists of a biomass, fossil fuel, and municipal waste combustion, gasification and pyrolysis conversion technology that can provide scalable heat and power requirements as well as both biofuel and biochar production. AAEC’s technology is for stand-alone use or as backup for alternative energy systems that depend on solar, wind or other intermittent sources of energy, and in this way it will help enable a doubling of the deployment of alternative energy projects around the world in coming decades.

    AAEC developed this new concept technology to enable homeowners, businesses, towns, cities and even counties to convert nearly completely to cleaner renewable energy. AAEC is for those who understand that cleaner distributed alternative/renewable energy derived from coal, solar, wind, biomass and waste is a viable pathway to stall global warming and produce a much better future for all communities, for our descendants, and ultimately for all humanity. AAEC offers a viable way to move beyond merely talking about global warming and climate change to better controlling it. Fossil Fuels firms and utilities may oppose what AAEC offers and may want to maintain their monopoly positions as sole energy providers and pass on the costs in cleaning up their operations to their long suffering clients and customers, even if much better options are available that would benefit them as well.

    AAEC management believes we will do better and be safer in the long run if we can deploy a practical way to power all societies on extraction of greenhouse gases that have already been emitted into earth’s atmosphere while also reducing ongoing greenhouse emissions and begin protecting our communities and electric power grids. We are claiming to be the inventor of one of the “tools” needed to enable humanity to overhaul the power delivery system, in the USA and elsewhere, and help get us out of the box fossil fuels and governmental inaction have humanity bound up in. We propose to do this through deployment of advanced alternative energy projects at community, city and county scale as good paying infrastructure producing jobs are needed. Therefore AAEC is seeking support from all that may care to support this project.

    AAEC’s product lines can be manufactured in the US and in most any locality on any continent for the local or regional market. This we at AAEC believe will create licensing opportunities and many thousands of good paying long term jobs and these are among the things we are offering to an alternative energy hungry world. For further details please contact:

    Les Blevins, President Advanced Alternative Energy Corp.
    1207 N 1800 Rd., Lawrence, KS 66049
    Phone 785-842-1943 – Email LBlevins@aaecorp.com
    For more info see
    http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html
    http://advancedalternativeenergycorp.com
    https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=45587557&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advanced-Alternative-Energy/277213435730720
    http://buildings.ideascale.com/a/dtd/SCALABLE-MIXED-WASTE-TO-ENERGY-CONVERSION-TECHNOLOGY/84117-33602

  2. Cameron Atwood says:

    Well said, Craig – the proof is in the pudding, and I hope and believe it will be delicious, and good for us (not just for distant future generations, but for ourselves and our immediate progeny).

    Change is always obstructed, no matter how needed or wise, but the forces are growing, aligning and massing – technology, money power, profit motive, people power, self preservation, sustainability and morality – all with compatible ends in view… with the common core focus on moving from fossil sunlight to modern sunlight.

    This represents hope for the continuity and evolution of civilization, as opposed to the deadly and crises-laden devolution into deprivation, chaos and conflict that will attend further delay.

    • marcopolo says:

      Cameron,

      I enjoy reading the opinions of high minded idealists. Wait a minute, that came out all wrong, I’m being sincere, I really do enjoy reading the optimism and well meant observation expressed by idealists. Idealism is very important to any civilized society.

      I’m afraid that both by training and experience, I find myself the one person in the room, who utters the negative sounding phrase, ” Yes, but how will you actually accomplish your goals ? Explain the details of your plan ?”

      Of course, I realize that most idealists, and passionate advocates, never think through all the ramifications. As a result, they are unable to answer to awkward question, and often fall back on political attacks or accusations of obstructionism.

      I’ve observed the waste, and destruction caused by idealistic governments and irresponsible entrepreneurs, intoxicated with the influence of ideological commitment, but lack any real planning.

      So when I ask for details, it’s disappointing to receive only vague replies, lacking specific details, or idea’s that are absurdly fanciful !

      This isn’t really all that bad, and makes for an interesting discussion. However, when translated to political policy, it can lead to a much darker aspect as ideologically committed politicians attempt to prop up poorly thought out decisions with public money, or resort to coercion. If unchecked, increasingly desperate governments (and supporters) , will attempt to reorganize society, and force the lifestyle choices of all citizens, to conform to the party’s ideological beliefs.

      Hopefully, in a modern democracy, the general public awakes, and dispenses with ideologues before any real harm is done. (except a loss of public money).

      We both agree on the need to develop and introduce new and more sustainable energy technologies. Where we seem to disagree, is the feasibility of accomplishing this goal in the near future.

      You express great faith in the ability of solar technology to completely replace fossil fuel in the very near future. You seek to substantiate this claim by the increasing sales of domestic solar panels in the US.

      I disagree. I believe that for the next 50 years at least, solar energy will remain an augmentation to conventional energy production. ( But, I hope a giant leap occurs in the technology, that proves me wrong !).

      I believe it’s important to look at all the aspects before investing, both negative and positive. This becomes difficult to access if burdened with ideological, or emotional commitment.

      Nor do I believe the general public care about ” huge externalities “, ask them if they would like a cleaner greener world, and of course they reply “yes”. Ask them if they are willing to pay more tax, higher consumer prices, and a loss of income, they will not only reply “No “, but do so at the ballot box !

      Solar will be an increasingly important part of energy production in the decades to come. However, without a radical new technological development, it will remain a simple augmentation for most industrialized nations.

  3. Les Blevins says:

    Bill Gates: On energy entrepreneurs and break through innovation

    Bill Gates has a word of encouragement for the energy entrepreneurs:

    “I would encourage people who work in this area that the importance of this is right at the top.” The reason I spend time on it is because I think it is so critical to the environmental challenge and for helping the poorest. Cheap energy is like a vaccine.

    While Gates has long said that the U.S. government needs to at least double its funding of energy research, he is heartened that the U.S. owns the majority share of the world’s energy startup portfolio companies, he said. But to help these entrepreneurs out we need to help make it possible for them to get capital, to scale up, to have access to China, and we need to create a framework that is very favorable to them, said Gates.

    This not going to be as easy as the IT revolution, said Gates, energy miracles are fundamental breakthroughs in science and engineering.

    We need “energy miracles,” or break through innovation, in at least five areas, and in each of these areas “we need at least two hundred crazy people who think their idea alone can solve this,” said Bill Gates at the Wall Street Journal’s Eco:nomics conference on Thursday night. In a 30-minute interview on the second night of the three day event, Gates discussed innovation in carbon capture, nuclear, biofuels, and clean power like solar and wind, and provided his thoughts on carbon taxes, politics and government funding.

    Gates said that it is particularly important to make sure that the “rewards are there,” for these crazy energy entrepreneurs, and “that is very unclear right now,” for grid-related generation technologies. You have to think why don’t we have more people doing things like that — what is holding these people back? said Gates.

    Gates himself has invested in a variety of energy-related startups, including nuclear company TerraPower, and battery company Liquid Metal Battery. In his talk he also said he is backing a startup doing gravity energy storage, which he referred to as “gravel on ski lifts.” He’s also a limited partner in Khosla Ventures, Vinod Khosla’s fund, and Gates jokingly referred to Khosla as “the pay master of crazy people — some of whom we’ll declare sane,” in the future. That’s what venture capital is all about, said Gates.

  4. marcopolo says:

    Graig,

    I admire and applaud your optimism and hope your vision is ultimately proved correct.

    However, a problems with attending conferences which support your beliefs, is by only listening to true believers, you hear, only want you want to hear.

    The world of new technology, is both fascinating and rewarding, but also contains many false promises, blind ally’s, and stuff that just doesn’t work. One new technology out of thousand reaches commercialization, and very few of those prove economically successful.

    So in principle, I agree with you, new and better technology does replace older less economic technology.

    Where we disagree is the timeline. The way societies adopt or reject new technology, get’s more complex with each passing decade. Fads come and go. All failed technologies once had devoted supporters and adherents.

    Far from the general public eagerly embracing alternate energy at any price, the public is growing suspicious of the vast waste of public expenditure for project that have produced little more than spectacular failures. For every Tesla, there are 1000 Solyndras.

    The price of solar panels may have come down with PRC mass manufacture, but the quality has always not improved. The figures are distorted by averaging the price. Large scale Solar projects have proved to be mostly economic white elephants. Solar technology is improving, but it’s contribution remains small, and heavily subsidized.

    In many nations, (and US states) coal continues to generate a significant percentage of base load power. Coal, like nuclear, isn’t easy to replace as the Germans have discovered.
    The many products produced by Oil and natural gas, allow the human populations of the world to survive, and build sufficient economic surplus to afford development of newer technologies.

    Alternate technologies will require many decades, to become effective. That doesn’t mean research and development should discontinue, nor does it mean that new technology isn’t going to prove increasingly successful. But, what it does mean, is the process will be long and arduous, with many wrong turns and inevitable disappointments.

    Over optimism, wild claims of a bright ‘revolution’ in the immediate future, is not helpful. In fact, this sort of unqualified enthusiasm is counter-productive. Hype always leads to disillusionment.

    Worse, it detracts from the value of smaller scale, practical, realistic projects, which may lack a certain glamour, but actually work.

    The coal industry’s efforts to research and produce “cleaner coal” power generation, along with Carbon Sequestration, are commendable. Not a perfect solutions, but with economically viable environmental benefits.

    Serious investors, especially long term investors, (as opposed to opportunistic speculators), are conservative. They stay in business by reducing risk to a minimum, even if that means less profit. Once governments move away from providing guarantees, and assistance for risk laden projects, the serious investors also depart. (smaller speculators move in to see what pickings are to be had from fleecing True Believers).

    Again, that’s not to say that some new technologies won’t become commercially viable, and establish new industries over time.But the process is evolutionary, not revolutionary.

    The list of failures stands as a grim warning sign to investors:-

    US, Asian and European European ethanol production, is an outstanding example of an alternate fuel source that has cost trillions of dollars, never became economic, and has created environmental damage on a greater scale that the fuel it replaced. It’s now a white elephant, that’s proving very difficult to eliminate.

    Vast solar thermal projects ( especially in the U.S. Southwest) Back in 2009 these were the project that would “solve ” US energy needs. But today, after losses exceeding $400 billion, the Solar Energy Industry Association recently admitted the prospects for new U.S. solar thermal plants in 2016 “bleak” considering the higher costs, the long time lines and the impending reduction of an important federal tax credit. Three big solar thermal projects from major developers have been put on hold indefinitely.

    Vectrix, Better Place, Ampera, Energy Cache, etc, were all once hailed as the way of the future. All raised billions, all failed.

    Just making solar panels cheaper for some suburban homes, is hardly a major shift in the energy paradigm. Heavily hyped by the Solar industry, and sympathetic media, more analytical observers remain skeptical.

    In 2008, the UK media, led by the leftist Guardian Newspaper, and enthusiastic Scottish TV newspapers, social media, etc, gushed to the world, about the installation of a Wind and Solar powered electricity system on the Isle of Muck, a tiny bleak island of the Scottish West coast,

    This tiny Island was trumpeted as showing the world how solar and wind could solve the problems of the world’s energy, without fossil fuels. The islanders were able to live in an economically sustainable power environment, and this could be replicated throughout the UK, if it wasn’t for the government of climate vandals, led by the arch-Tory (villain) David Cameron.

    Hmmmm…well like every hysterical claim, there was a grain of truth. Muck does indeed derive some benefits from the installation. The population of the Isle has increased from 28 to 38 ! People can watch TV,and play video games.

    The Island estimates that revenue from tourism has increased an extra $160,000 per year since the installation.

    Economically, the benefits are an illusion. The cost of the total installation, was just over $4,000,000. (The island is basically, a single sheep farm.) Although in 2008 the project was touted as completely self sufficient, and free of “fossil fuels”. it has now proved to need a Diesel Generator 15% of the time.

    The quality of life, and green philosophy has definitely improved, and Muck’s main landowners, Lawrence and Ewen MacEwen are to be commended on initiating such a worthwhile enterprise.

    In 2008 British manufacturer, Evance Wind Turbines were quoted as stating they expected the Wind and Solar plant to operate faultlessly, for 50 years or more. (although they only provided a 20 year warranty ) . Since 2008, the system has required no less than 11 service calls to effect repairs.

    However, as far as being an example for the economic potential of Wind Solar, it’s absurd !

    If EU and UK government incentives and capital donations are removed, the stark reality is the system cost the Island of Muck $4,000,000. The price of diesel supply has increased since the large tender servicing the islands has been discounted, and freight has increased in price.

    The system will have to be replaced after 20-25 years, and without a government grant, the island won’t be able to afford a replacement. So far from “independent” the island has become totally dependent on the UK taxpayer. ( That’s ok, maintaining these quaint little communities is a worthwhile use of taxpayer funds).

    But in truth, for the same money, the isle could have installed a modern diesel, or NG generator, with enough fuel to have lasted the isle 2000 years for free !

    The Island could have developed it’s own peat bog resource, as a sustainable bio-mass industry. The energy output would have been similar, and cut-over techniques classify Peat as a local “biomass” fuel, as such it meets the conditions set by the EU Energy Policy Commission.

    In Scotland, carefully managed peat harvesting, can also create highly lucrative by-product Malt Whisky distillation ! ( More environmental than sheep ). Another use for Peat is balneotherapy (the use of bathing to treat disease). Balneotherapy spa treatment centers are also an increasingly popular and lucrative industry.

    Of course, peat is only viable as a very localized resource. On a very small scale environmentally negative harmful emissions can be neutralized or minimized. Peat not a feasible large scale industry.

    Nevertheless, it shows what can be achieved when rational analysis is applied. By utilizing a mixture of old and new technologies, and removing ideological considerations, sustainable energy projects can be both environmentally beneficial, and economically sustainable.

    No single technology has all the answers, those that can economically augment existing technologies with the least disruptive impact, will receive the largest share of non-government investment.

    • I agree with all this to the degree that there are, and will continue to be, a fabulous number of false claims and over-promises associated with clean energy. There are few people who see mopre pure BS on a daily basis than I.

      There are also unintended consequences of the technologies, economic policies and political agendas associated with clean tech generally.

      On top of that, there is greed; this industry is certainly not immune from people who simply want to cash in on bad policy in a way that causes far more harm than good, e.g., the palm oil fiasco.

  5. Pierre says:

    if the entire worlds energy needs were to be met by nuclear energy, we would run out of minable fissile uranium within 5 years.

    carbon sequestration is impossible, in view of the staggering volumes to be pumped underground (17 trillion cubic meters per year, thats enough to cover all of russia with a one metre thick blanket, annually!) there are simply not enough geological formations able to hold all that, nor do we have the means to capture, compress and inject all that, and then monitor it forever.

    • marcopolo says:

      Pierre,

      I’m not sure where you obtain your information, but according to the IEA , about 9 % of the world’s power is generated by nuclear energy. The IEA estimates the world’s existing rate of production of uranium, to last 90 years.

      That’s an old mistake of commonly made by doomsday advocates. By multiplying only existing production by 10 x and ignoring any newer technology, the myth of 10 years is created. (5 is really silly) !

      In fact, if the world fossil fuel electricity production were replaced by Uranium fueled reactors, the existing proven reserves from Australia alone would last more than 200 years !

      But, replace Uranium, with Thorium, and the capacity is almost limitless. Even assuming existing technology never improves, generation would be assured for a 1000 years !

      As for carbon sequestration, technologies for carbon sequestration are still in their infancy.

      For instance, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory propose that the Juan de Fuca plate could potentially store over 240 gigatons ofCO2. That’s nearly 150 years of US carbon emissions.

      Just encouraging the restoration of the sperm whale population, (or stop killing them with cancer from bunker oil) would add up to 4 % of the oceans ability to absorb carbon . (No need to monitor, whales do ok if left alone).

      Utilizing C02 and mining residue in cement production, is just one of a host of new technologies emerging. These new technologies have the potential to neutralize 2 billion tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases annually.

      Increasing forests, decreasing desertification, and prevention of forest fires, are all potential large scale carbon sequestration technologies available, without much disruption.

      There are more than 280 methods of carbon sequestration available, and more becoming viable as research intensifies.

      Doomsday prophets, are inevitably proved wrong because they rely on distorting information to suit a particular theory.

  6. marcopolo says:

    Thank you for your reply,

    But the issue goes deeper than a few rotten apples, and delusional prophets.

    It’s very important to maintain confidence in the accuracy, validity and value of environmental issues, if Joe Public is to keep supporting(and funding), the development of new, cleaner technologies.

    With each failure, scandal, revising of once “absolute truths” , Joe Public grows more disillusioned. The entire environmental movement, no matter how valid, suffers from counter-productive, wildly over optimistic claims by fanatics.

    Energy, is only one of the environmental issues requiring attention over the next 50 years.

    The elephant in the room, that’s carefully ignored by environmental advocates and climate change advocates demanding radical action, is the disappearance of a pillar in the energy debate, M. King Hubbert’s theory of ” Peak Oil ” !

    Peak Oil, has been a basic tenet of environmental planning for decades. Peak oil became an established belief, because it was easy for Joe Public to grasp. Joe Public could see each time he filled his car, oil seemed to cost more. The idea of a finite resource on a finite planet, seemed logical. Anyone questioning the validity of “peak oil”, was soundly pilloried as a right-wing troglodyte.

    So strong was faith in this belief, that even when the original projection of 1977, was adjusted to 2000, and then to about “2020” , the general public went along with the “experts” , and authorized vast sums to be invested in alternate energy sources.

    With the re-inforcement of Global Warming, Climate Change, western voters, especially young voters, exposed to the new media of the internet, became caught up in a crusade that rapidly assumed all the aspects of a new religion. ( it even had a convenient devil in the oil industry).

    Combining vague moral precepts, scientific supposition, and the political skills of the old left, excitement and propaganda went into hyper-drive. For nearly 10 years the actual science and reality, was swamped by a wave of new crusaders. High minded, rhetoric and passionate advocacy replaced analysis. Skeptics, and moderates were derided as “deniers” and hounded into silence.

    Vast sums were spent on international talk-fests, where politicians, advocate and vast numbers of hangers-on, including media arrived in large aircraft, and agreed on grandiose plans to create vast bureaucracies, with important sounding, but vague, objectives, all designed to meet the looming “crisis “.

    Climate change had become a vast new industry, with considerable vested interest in maintaining it’s momentum. Within a remarkably short period, 2004 to 2012, it dominated political philosophy, in the western world. As a phenomenon, it wasn’t hard to understand. After all, it was a combination of Western moral values, leftist philosophy, new investment opportunities, similar to the amazing success of silicon valley, and spread by a new media, the internet. It was a politicians dream. A cause where rhetoric counted for more than reason, action more than planning. It also distracted from answering more mundane, difficult economic issues.

    But all parties must come to an end ! With the dawn, the revelers found the grey dawn of reality, and some began to worry how to pay the caterers bill ! (others just wanted to just pull down the blinds and party on) .

    Between 2010 and 2014, the oil industry had realized it’s enormous investments in alternate fuels were never going to be economically viable, and commenced investing in new technologies to develop their core product. The results have been staggering !

    Hubbert’s ” Peak Oil ” , is now almost completely discredited. The world is awash with cheap plentiful oil. The biggest impact has been on the US. In 2006, the US economy was a disaster, burdened with unprecedented debt, decaying manufacture and capital flight, the US was a crippled giant, with no prospect of a solution except to live at the largesse of creditors.

    In 2015, largely as a result of domestic energy independence, the US has become economically revitalized.

    This has not gone unnoticed by the world’s general public. Joe public is still concerned about the environment, but growing more skeptical, and far less willing to fund grandiose, disruptive proposals.

    Going forward, governments, and investment managers, are going to be far more analytical and accountable. The Western world is entering an era of conservative fiscal policies. Environmental programs will have to complete with more fundamental issues for funding.

    Elected governments and Investors will no longer be swept away by rhetoric, the nest US administrations, must start to address the difficult issue of national debt.

    Funding for new energy technologies will have to compete for funding, within a more realistic economic dynamic. Rhetoric about Climate Change, “externalities”, ” peak oil “, “mother Nature”, will no longer justify, lazy science and unsubstantiated speculative claims.

    In this new, and far more difficult “green” investment climate, public confidence will be essential. Public confidence will only be gained by solid, accurate information, and verifiable evidence.

    (sorry about the length ).

    • I can’t understand how a person of your stature can say that we lack solid, accurate information, and verifiable evidence of climate change and the externalities of burning fossil fuels. Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/06/20/take-a-cool-guess-the-fun-quiz-on-clean-energy-todays-topic-studies-on-global-warming/.

      • marcopolo says:

        Graig,

        Joe Public has grown weary of endless doomsday predictions that just don’t occur.

        In the late 1960’s a “consensus’ of scientists, and experts endorsed the ‘peer reviewed’ widely accepted, authoritative conclusion by the ‘Club of Rome ‘ think-tank, that 1977 was going to be the “Year the Stork Passed the Plow “.

        1977, was the ‘irreversible’ tipping point, were the human population would suffer sustained global famine, and only the immediate reduction of the population could solve the planet.

        Well, by 1978, the world (especially Europe) was suffering from an enormous surplus of food production, accompanied by a rise in population.

        ” Peak Oil “, has been a similar, authoritative, “consensus” peer reviewed” doomsday scenario, that failed to eventuate.

        Since 2013, any observation that anomalies exist in the methodology of climate alarmists, as been met with the sort of Orwellian double-speak usually employed by bureaucrats.

        Joe Public, has grown increasingly skeptical. He watches the 40 year economic and environmental disaster created by the US ethanol industry, which he was once told was essential to his (and the environments) well being, being defended by increasingly desperate vested interests.

        Joe Public isn’t that well versed in scientific knowledge, but he can eventually figure out when the cry of ” Wolf !” is being used to justify the spending of his tax dollars on failed ideology, disguised as science.

        Joe Public is quite willing to accept scientific evidence that human activity contributes to climate change. What he’s grown skeptical about, is the use of that evidence to justify ill-conceived, poorly thought-out public expenditure on projects, based on an amalgam of ideology and distorted science.

        Joe Public, is rightly suspicious of strident, fanatical, political methods employed by climate change extremists. He (quite rightly ) feels that any scientist who calls for an end to debate, has abandoned science in favour of totalitarian ideology.

        Joe Public is quite willing to accept the scientific evidence of human contribution to climate change, but he (again quite rightly) is not willing to accept that there can be a valid “consensus’ as to the exact effects, or remedies, arising from climate change.

        The much despised popular press, has given voice to skeptic’s observance of a plateau in global temperatures since about 1998. This casts doubt upon the methodology, and infallibility of climate change “consensus ” modelling.

        The response by ‘climate science’ orthodoxy, has not reassured Joe Public in the way it has ‘true believers’. Justifying such a glaring anomaly by simply ‘ readjusting’ the data to get the right result, is hardly reassuring ! ( The explanation may be correct, but maintaining a pose of infallibility while forced to accept error, is normally associated with politicians, not scientists).

        Joe Public was always willing to accept spending tax money on developing alternatives to Oil/Gas, as long as he was convinced that oil and gas were about to become scarce and uneconomic. A 40 year period of increasing pump prices, and air pollution in big cities, had proved to Joe Public that alternatives were desirable.

        The increasing use of technology to remove the problem of air pollution, and the massive increase in availability of cheaper oil and gas, coupled by the failure to develop any economically viable mass alternative, has inevitably created a loss of public support for tax funding.

        Countries like the US are becoming economically, and Industrially competitive once again, thanks to a resurgence in domestic Oil-Gas industries. The Oil industry brings economic prosperity and employment.

        Joe Public will still support environmental policies, if he is convinced they’re based on sound scientific and economic analysis. It’s not the song he’s lost faith in, it’s the singers !

  7. Vicente Fachina says:

    Hi Gents,

    As I have commented before, the O&G industry is not the culprit itself. It exists because demands were created around a century ago by IC cars against the EV cars (which were Edson´s big next move).
    The O&G business can live on longer by delivering oil and gas not to be burned up but as raw material for petrochemicals only. The carbon shall remain out of the atmosphere.

    Best,
    Vicente Fachina