Guy Ciarrocchi: Climate change? Maybe. Ban fossil fuels? No. (Part II)
To further our discussion from my last column, let’s assume that the Left is correct about the unprecedented “climate crisis,” that it will only get worse due to human activity, and not be fixed or balanced by other natural occurrences — like solar activity. And let’s assume also that ending the use of fossil fuels would make it better, and that using fossil fuels couldn’t, in fact, be used to protect us, help us deal with, or even thrive under climate change.
Even then, there are still more questions that the Left needs to answer before we consent to them radically transforming our way of life, harming our economy and making us energy dependent on our enemies.
4. Is so-called “green energy” even viable as a replacement to fossil fuels? And, by the way, is it truly “green”?
We have to ask because if we are going to stop using fossil fuels (and, eating meat, etc.), we should make sure that “green energy” can replace it and that it can keep up with a growing American (and world) population and the growing needs for energy. Shouldn’t we take a moment and make sure that “green energy” is actually cleaner, healthier, and better for us?
If we are going to wake up in 2034, 2044, or 2050 in an America with no gas-powered cars, no gas ranges and no natural gas-powered or coal-fired electricity plants (how 60 percent of our electricity is made), can enough solar panels be built and installed to power us safely, reliably? Have we considered how much material and land that requires, to convert even 50 percent of our energy to solar?
Can enough wind turbines be constructed, installed and maintained? Can wind turbines and solar panels be built and run safely through freezing temperatures, snow, ice, hail, hurricanes, tornadoes, limited wind and cloudy days? Without putting them in the ocean and harming marine life and the ocean ecosystem? What do we do with them when they fail, break, and end their usefulness?
Are America’s electric-grids ready? Do you know that most analysts believe our grids are already fragile? Recall, the recent brown-outs and black-outs in California and Texas?
Clueless California Governor Newsom announced an end to the sale of gasoline powered cars in 2023. Then, the next day, he told Californians not to plug in their electric cars at night — the grid couldn’t handle it. It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.
Our grids are already under strain. How will they handle an America of only (primarily) electric cars, ranges, grills and public transit? For the moment, let’s assume (hope, pray) that we can build enough wind turbines (and we will have to create an “exception” for the diesel engines that are often placed in the base of them to keep them moving). And let’s assume (hope, pray) China will sell us the solar panels we need — as they make most of those we use in America and control access to the materials needed to make them, even if we wanted to begin making them in America. (And, by the way…to make them, you need chemicals and materials that come from using natural gas…ahem.)
What about the thousands of other essential products made from oil and natural gas — Biden’s own EPA says there are nearly 6,000? How do we have surgeries, or make medicine without fossil fuels?
Do the “ban fossil fuels” folks think that each of those steps can be done somehow without fossil fuels? They better explain this. If not, will they “allow” some use? How much — and who decides?
For solar panels, it’s the same issues, plus empowering and depending on China — the world’s biggest producer. America produced less than two percent of our own panels last year.
Do the “ban fossil fuels” folks not really care about being dependent on China for solar panels? Or being dependent on China for the materials to make them? (By the way, do the “ban” folks think China is making the solar panels in “solar powered” factories?)
And, batteries…yes, batteries. These electric cars and other machines will need big, heavy batteries? They require everything discussed with wind turbines and solar panels, plus the minerals needed are usually mined in Africa by teenagers, often mines owned by China. And mining of minerals creates billions of gallons of waste water every day. Yet, no fear, surely the Chinese-run African factories adhere to the safest standards.
The more you think about it: is green energy really practical? Can green energy protect our way of life? National security? Is it really green?
But let’s assume there is a “crisis,” that it’s “man-made,” that it cannot be dealt with by technology and fossil fuels, and that “green energy” can somehow — miraculously — replace fossil fuels and do it safely and cleanly. The last part is not even remotely true — nor does any serious person plausibly make a good case.
5. Last, but not least: Where will the “climate crisis” crowd stop after banning fossil fuel? Gas ranges? Cows? What’s the ultimate goal?
Now that the “climate crisis” crowd has taken over a political party, much of the legacy media, universities, and many corporations, they have first set their sights on “banning fossil fuels.”
But, it’s unlikely to end there as many of their leaders, spokespersons and politicians openly talk about banning cows and farming, “advising” us to eat bugs, restricting the number of births, etc. They’re on a quest — it’s a religion.
So, the question is — if they truly believe it’s an unprecedented “man-made” crisis that can’t be handled and the only course of action is radical, immediate comprehensive steps, where will it end?
Will they ban cows? Some European nations have begun slaughtering their cows. Will politicians require us to eat bugs? Where do you think all of the news stories, social media posts and food network programs about bugs are coming from? How low will they lower our standard of living?
And, is “climate crisis” more important than national security? Is it okay to be dependent on — even subservient to — China?
And, by the way, what level of reduction or improvement are we shooting for?
How low must we reduce the CO2 in the air? (And, don’t forget, we do need CO2 for plants — and life )
Is there any cost-benefit analysis being done? Where does their quest end? How much harm, suffering, death will we allow?
Why don’t we ever debate this? Why isn’t this done through legislation — rather than “accords,” mandates, and executive orders? Why aren’t we part of the debate: pros and cons; costs and benefits; targets; timelines.
This isn’t some debate needed at the local library or even at the Oxford Union. We need a reality check.
Maybe it’s time to hit the pause button; ask some questions and demand some answers.
Guy Ciarrocchi is a Senior Fellow with the Commonwealth Foundation. He writes for Broad + Liberty and RealClear Pennsylvania. Follow Guy at @PaSuburbsGuy
“(And, don’t forget, we do need CO2 for plants — and life ) ”
This asinine statement is all one needs to understand the quality (or lack there of) of anything in this article.
You may not care for the way in which the comment is made, however It is true.
There is more CO2 in the air than plants and trees can process. Prior to cars plants and trees had no problems thriving for hundreds of thousands of years, just look at the Amazon jungle.
In an all or nothing world Mr. Ciarrocchi is the court jester. He would have you believe that the “Green Movement” is a single entity bent on the complete elimination of fossil fuels and that they are hell bent on achieving this goal.
First off there are his repeated claims that America and its economy will not grow if replace fossil fuels. No doubt similar claims were made by the horse wagon and whip makers manufacturers when horseless carriages were first produced. They were slow, noisy, and prone to breakdowns and over time the technology got better. Blacksmiths became auto mechanics and a wagon maker, Studebaker, made cars.
“And mining of minerals creates billions of gallons of waste water every day.” Now lets talk about Fracking and how much water it uses and the unknown chemicals it is pumping into the ground. “plus the minerals needed are usually mined in Africa by teenagers, often mines owned by China. ” And the Middle East, Russia, and parts of South America with vast fossil fuel reserves are also highly unstable.
“Can wind turbines and solar panels be built and run safely through freezing temperatures, snow, ice, hail, hurricanes, tornadoes, limited wind and cloudy days?” You’re right. Its not like the companies and government agencies don’t extensively test these items to make sure they can survive all but the most severe conditions, something that Texas power grid can’t claim.
“This isn’t some debate needed at the local library or even at the Oxford Union. We need a reality check. Maybe it’s time to hit the pause button; ask some questions and demand some answers.” You are calling for a debate, one with endless questions that you will never be satisfied with the answers.
Mr. Ciarrocchi would lead you to believe that when it comes to the environment it is all or nothing and he is correct. Mr. Ciarrocchi wants it all and has noting to give in exchange.
Guy, ask yourself: “How does this help the Chinese Communist Party?” It cuts right to the core of why our politicians push so many unreasonable policies. Our politicians are purchased and focused on short-term thinking. The climate policies are illogical, currently worse for the environment (electric car brake dust alone makes those far heavier vehicles dirtier than gas powered) and designed to remove anonymity, free movement, and individual freedoms. Our Covid policies were the same. We are no longer taught to be afraid of “fear itself” but instead taught to give up freedom for safety and be constantly afraid. That is by design.
DEI… How does this help the Chinese Communist Party? It ensures the best are not running institutions, it ensures a fractious and victim mentality, and it breeds internal strife. (It is the opposite of the Ottoman Empire, and their Janissaries, a group of elite Christian slaves, as a prime example of merit-based promotion.)
Afghanistan Bagram air base… How does this help China? They now control one of the most strategic military bases in the world.
LGBTQIA+ mania… How does this help China? To start, those categories are not even aligned yet they are bunched together. Having a new ideology that is contrary to the ideology and mores that created the United States of America taught to our children is very useful for the Chinese Communist Party.
Novel climate policies that will radically transform our way of life, harm our economy and make us energy dependent on our enemies… How does this help the CCP?
I see you are auditioning your latest conspiracy theory, China.
You know who else had the same policy for Covid as China? Almost every country in the world during Covid. Its not a conspiracy, its common sense when dealing with a disease that has long lasting effects or death that is airborne.
By the way you forgot to mention that America is a Godless country and doomed to fail.
You guys should just kiss already.
Almost every country in the world… but wait, not every country? No, not every country. Because every country, state, county, etc. is different with different densities, ages of populations, etc. For example, how did Sweden do? Oh… interesting. But Lower-case judah wants everyone to obey and give up all their rights and freedoms and comply with uniform big government one-size-fits-all policies. So, stope complaining! And we can wear masks and be safe entering a restaurant just to take off those same masks three feet later when you sit down to eat. Those Covid policies and mandates were dumb, they were made up based on good intentions, and now years after the fact they are indefensible. How about you explain to me why brake dust from EV’s should be ignored? You can’t. But if you ask: “How does this help the Chinese Communist Party?” then the obviously bad policies and propaganda makes more sense.
“So, stope complaining!” You’re right micHaEL, I should stope complaining.
We now have a better understanding of how Covid works along with a vaccination for it. As for your EV brake dust conspiracy theory, its like every other conspiracy theory you have posted. There are no actual facts to support your claims that brake dust is far worse threat than car exhaust.
Tell me something, when you go to bed at night, do you check your closet of anxiety to see if anyone from the CCP is hiding in it?
I disagree with the implication there is such a vast reservoir of CO2 that there is no need to be mindful of it and try to preserve its generators. Simple searches of the Internet and other science-based sources of information will yield the knowledge you need to see the relationship between CO2 and O2. Anyway, my comment relates to the question of the planet’s support of its population. I believe the elites have clandestinely answered the question. I posit that the push for abortions without restrictions, live birth actions for death, parents being allowed to terminate their children up to age 2 without restriction, children as young as 12 allowed to choose suicide for no particular reason is the actual answer to the question that will not be debated openly.
George, where do you get this junk science from?
Parents can terminate their children up to the age of 2?
Children as young as 12 can chose to commit suicide?
Live birth actions for death?
Not enough C02 in the atmosphere that we need to generate more?
And that all of this and more is a conspiracy of the “elites”, whoever they are?