7 Comments
User's avatar
Anita Farris's avatar

Rational thought/approach guaranteed to be rejected totally by those for whom it produces no unilateral power.

Expand full comment
Alex Lekas's avatar

"Some believe that having such a remedy will allow us to continue using fossil fuels and living the lifestyles we currently enjoy."

Then let's tell the truth and say that "some" are not interested in climate change; they're just willing to use it as cover for a goal that even many enviros would oppose. The same applies to their opposition to nuclear. If a solution is branded as "too easy," then just be honest and say you're not interested in solutions to the stated problem; you're going after something completely different, an endgame that you know a vast majority will find objectionable.

Expand full comment
chad's avatar

I share some of the same thoughts as you, especially along the lines of the "best-and-brightest" don't truly want solutions - they want control. We may have some disagreements on some of the science. Overall, I think we are about on the same page.

But the "best-and-brightest" will never admit that so-called "green energy" is anything but, and not only is it wholly dependent upon subsidies to survive as an industry, but it is inherently dependent upon innumerable quantities of "fossil fuel" products from manufacturing all the way through operation and maintenance:

https://open.substack.com/pub/curetsky/p/how-green-is-green-energy?r=xb9l8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

As for the carbon capture facilities, to each his own, but I pretty much think they're a joke myself and again, not very "green" in reality. IMO, rather than trying to create giant vacuums a la Spaceball 1 (https://open.substack.com/pub/curetsky/p/cleaning-up-our-atmosphere?r=xb9l8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false), I'd rather see more trees planted (or fewer razed only to be replaced by solar panels and wind turbines).

Expand full comment
Peter Venetoklis's avatar

As I noted, I'm happy to see the research, if only as a backstop for the future. I personally don't think they'll be necessary, but hedging bets without harming people's lives isn't a bad thing.

Expand full comment
chad's avatar

I guess I just see it much like the (allegedly) green energy producers themselves. Eat up huge swaths of environment in order to (supposedly) save the environment (not to mention the fact that CO2 is *not* pollution).

But these "carbon capture" plants are really just a way to sell "carbon credits" (IMO - from what I've read). More wealth redistribution and control. Again, that's my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

If they *really* wanted to do something about alleged climate change, they should address the most copious cause of reflective warming - water vapor. But then, you'll never convince billions of people that water vapor is a pollutant or harmful to the environment.

Expand full comment
Peter Venetoklis's avatar

I agree with your first paragraph. But, just because some are exploiting the hysteria doesn't mean there is no "there" there. There might indeed be no "there" there, but I'm not convinced of that (yet).

Expand full comment
dave walker's avatar

The climate catastrophe pushers have been wrong for as long as they’ve made the claims. The same mentality grasps the MSM to repeat known untruths and propaganda to hypnotize their followers. The climate scams and green energy claims of panacea are a move for power and control. This is spreading in to so many other segments of our society. The people that think in only a closed minded way are UNABLE TO THINK CRITICALLY for themselves. The violence against “conservative” groups has escalated because the people who disagree are irrational and only think silencing the opposing views is success. Really good piece. Really tragic day yesterday and 24 years ago as well. God Bless America 🇺🇸 May we work to solve differences peacefully and work hard for prosperity.

Expand full comment