Let’s zoom out and look at what the climate movement is actually asking of us.
They’re asking us to dismantle the fossil fuel energy system that has produced the greatest abundance in human history. Because of a byproduct called CO2—a plant food that NASA satellites show has contributed to 50% more green cover across the globe.
All because of a fear that extreme weather like droughts, hurricanes, and flooding will get worse, sea-levels will rise steeply, and crops will suffer. But the empirical data from the last 40 years shows none of that is actually happening. Crop yields are at record highs, extreme weather shows no change, and sea-level is rising at a steady 3mm/year.
Still, the argument goes, maybe someday in the future things could get worse. So we need to spend trillions transitioning off reliable, abundant, energy-dense fossil fuels onto unreliable, land-hungry technologies like solar and wind.
We have to do this with taxpayer money. Not because voters chose it—but because governments are mandating it.
And here’s the kicker: it won’t even work. The countries adopting net-zero goals represent a fraction of global emissions. China and India are still developing fossil fuels as fast as they can—and cheap energy is pulling our manufacturing straight to them. Every country that guts its fossil fuel infrastructure will make itself poorer, hollow out its industrial base, and kill jobs—while global emissions keep rising.
Oh, and because solar and wind are intermittent, we still need backup gas and oil infrastructure on standby for when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining. So we’re paying for both systems.
And nuclear—the most energy-dense, reliable, zero-emission power source we have—is also off the table.
Did I get that right?