Video available on:
- Unraveling the truth behind the concerns and questioning whether CO2 is truly as bad as it’s portrayed.
- Highlighting the potentially catastrophic consequences of transitioning to intermittent, dilute, and unreliable energy sources.
- Exploring the European Union’s goal to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 90-95% by 2040.
- Understanding the pivotal role that fossil fuels play in society, from amplifying human productivity to driving innovation and progress in various fields.
- Examining the shortcomings of solar and wind energy, such as their diluteness, intermittency, and the extensive resources and infrastructure required for their implementation.
Have you ever wondered why there’s such an obsession with CO2? After all, CO2 is plant food, right? So, is it really as bad as they say? In this article, we’re going to dive deep into the details and uncover the truth about CO2 and the necessity of fossil fuels. You see, there’s a real danger in removing all fossil fuels and transitioning to intermittent, dilute, and unreliable energy sources. The consequences could be catastrophic, leading to the death of billions of people, an increase in poverty levels, and even societal collapse.
The European Union (EU) is currently pushing for drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They aim to slash net emissions by 90-95% by 2040, as part of their commitment to combat climate change. On the surface, this may seem like a rational move, but when you understand the necessity of fossil fuels and the value they provide to society, it becomes clear that this plan could have dire consequences.
Energy is the foundation of society, influencing every aspect of our lives. The cost-effectiveness of energy plays a crucial role in our ability to utilize it efficiently and foster innovation and productivity. Prior to the widespread use of fossil fuels, society was limited by the lack of affordable energy, relying on human power, which resulted in minimal productivity, little innovation, and no societal progress.
The introduction of cost-effective energy sources, namely fossil fuels, revolutionized human productivity. It allowed us to overcome the natural limitations of human power and paved the way for the incredible advancements we see today in technology, healthcare, and various other fields. Fossil fuels are, in fact, the best source of energy we currently have due to their abundance, concentration, and centuries of economic innovations that have made them highly cost-effective.
Since the Industrial Revolution, machines have played a crucial role in increasing productivity and disconnecting manual labor from conventional means. Energy is like “machine food” or “machine calories” and the properties of good energy are affordability, reliability, transportability, and versatility. Fossil fuels check all these boxes, thanks to their natural properties and the economic innovations that have made their utilization highly efficient.
On the other hand, solar and wind energy, which are often hailed as renewable alternatives, fail to meet these criteria. They are intermittent, dilute, and unreliable. Solar and wind energy have a low energy density, meaning they contain less energy per unit of volume or mass compared to fossil fuels. This diluteness results in the need for a larger amount of land to produce the same amount of energy. Moreover, solar and wind energy require extensive resources, including rare earth elements, and the construction of long-range transmission infrastructure, which adds to the overall cost.
The most significant issue with solar and wind energy, however, is their natural intermittency. Unlike fossil fuels, which can provide energy on demand, solar and wind are dependent on favorable weather conditions. This creates a major problem in transforming their highly uncontrollable electricity input into a controllable electricity output. To ensure reliability, solar and wind energy must be backed up by controllable energy sources when sunlight is insufficient or the wind is not blowing.
The cost of this dual infrastructure, comprising intermittent and controllable energy sources, far exceeds that of a 100% controllable energy infrastructure. Additionally, the ability to store solar and wind energy is currently inadequate. Batteries can only supply a few minutes of average electricity consumption, and the cost of providing just seven days of energy storage for the world’s current energy use is exorbitant.
While the EU and other proponents of radical environmentalism argue for the elimination of fossil fuels, the reality is that doing so will have devastating consequences. Just look at Germany, where skyrocketing energy prices have pushed millions of people into poverty. Currently, fossil fuels account for 80% of the world’s energy sources, while solar and wind make up only 3% despite receiving billions of dollars in subsidies.
We must understand that cost-effective energy is fundamental for human flourishing. The rapid elimination of ultra cost-effective energy sources like fossil fuels in favor of intermittent and dilute alternatives will result in billions of people being pushed into poverty and societal collapse. The plans driven by climate change alarmism have often been utilized by tyrants to gain authoritarian control.
It’s time to speak the truth and resist these misguided policies of the net zero. We need to recognize the positive aspects of CO2 and the dangers of eliminating cost-effective energy. Climate change initiatives like Net Zero are disastrous for humanity. We must make media great again and ensure that the truth prevails. Even a small push towards radical environmentalism, as seen in Germany and other parts of the world, has proven disastrous.
If we continue down this path, billions of people will suffer the consequences of net zero. Let’s resist the narrative and work towards a more balanced and sustainable approach to energy that takes into account the true needs of society.