I think when we call government ministers of any kind 'retards' we do ourselves a disservice because we ascribe to stupidity things that may have other motives.
First of all, the article Eugyppius quotes is an analysis of the greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) produced in and exported from the United States.
It's not an analysis of the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from any source! Natural gas is mostly a byproduct of oil production. I won't go further because I'm no where near an oil expert or geological expert.
Secondly, the US did not want Germany buying gas from Russia via pipeline (or any other way). They wanted Germany buying US exported gas. They succeeded in achieving this goal after the Russian pipeline was rendered unusable.
It would be very interesting to hear why Germany agreed to buy natural gas from such a 'dirty' source as the article describes, i.e., what were the politics behind this decision. PS: Germany approached Canada but our dear leader couldn't come up with a business case!
So in this case, we should not ascribe to stupidity that which can be ascribed to politics, even though the politics may be stupid.
Don't know if this tops it or not, it's a competition no-one wants to win anyway:
Swedish greens of all sorts wants to (drum roll) demolish all hydro-electric power dams in Sweden, and all other dams too.
Hydro is about 1/3 of our power production. The other dams (thousands of small ones) are crucial to avoid flooding every spring. F.e. the lake nearby where my mother lives varies in surface height with as much as 5 meters between snow melt floods in Spring and late Summer. Should it cease to be regulated, half the town would be flooded every year.
That's to say nothing about what would happen to every building and town built close to water after every water-way was finally regulated and controlled a little over a century ago. Good-bye to large parts of Stockholm and Gothenburg, for starters.
I say again, as I have said for 20+ years: the rise of Green parties correlates with the shuttering of mental institutions, as does the rise of feminism and multiculturalism.
It is high time to turn both clock and calendar back a century, and start over.
Malthus never recommended anything related to population control. He merely observed that population grows geometrically (exponentially), whereas food production growth tended to be arithmetical (linear). This made recurrent population limitation through famine inevitable. Of course he made the observation at the start of the modern era and failed to foresee the advances in agriculture that rendered his insight null and void.
It’s import to remember that his motivation was to counter the enthusiasm of Utopianism which he detested. Malthus was a sceptic who thought the road to hell really was paved with good intentions and would, I suspect, be very much at home with us here in this - and similar - Substacks. He’d almost certainly have seen through the utopian nonsense of net zero and government Covid response.
there's a basic problem in life that can't be fixed. more individual liberty is always bad for the stability of society.
when women can take care of themselves, fewer men can find longterm mates.
the worst job i ever had was with a professional feminist organization. they were horrible people and they despised me for being straight and at the time married.
but the concept that women should be able to choose their own life paths and be able to afford to do so is not wrong. it's just not cost-free.
Don't know what you're getting the association from, that equality before the law (the original women's lib, classical liberal, labour union and workers movement as well as democratic nationalist position) would cause problems, or that women in the West were less free than men; the latter notion is an ahistorical feminist revisionist talking point so embedded that it has become truth.
Men were under the same if not an even more rigid social structure, based on class, income and family name/reputation (plus ethniccity, religion et c).
The problem is that insanity has been tolerated, then elevated, as a virtue.
Women may not have been less free than men in the west but they had many fewer choices. A few hundred years ago, actually maybe only 100 years ago, the only way for a woman to advance her social/financial position was through marriage. It's no wonder that some women married for money. I believe it was Sir Walter Scott that recognized this.
I can guarantee you, perhpaps not so much in the west these days, that there are still women in abusive domestic relationships whose only choice is grin and bear it or take your chances on the street, literally.
An unmarried woman also had limited choices: enter a convent or enter a brothel. The legend of St. Nicholas had it that he saved 3 sisters from a brothel by providing them with golden balls that they were able to use a dowery.
I agree that it hasn't been easy for men either but there is a pecking order on the planet; it's usually the strongest at the top and that hasn't in the past been women or children.
DEI, or more aptly DIE, has pushed the pendulum way to far however.
The very, very top are a few men (dark triad traits, mostly) then follows all women (and children). The rest of the pyramid, bearing by far the most weight, have always been the regular man
I think you're right about the few men to top. I agree that regular men bear the most weight although I still think regular women have the least choices.
Yes, choices, men can die earlier from their chosen line of work in more ways than women can. And, no, men cannot choose not to work and be fail to be self-sufficient, a luxury only allowed to the fairer sex. Lest we forget, “Women and children first,” only after the smart elite are not on the boat in the first place.
Sincere question: can you give examples and expand on your comment (and please don't count royalty)? Like I said, Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832) was the person I read who made the observation.
Swedish women could run businesses, own businesses, and inherit businesses, go into professions, own land and livestock and so on - not completely "free" as today but neither could men. And wear pants if the situation warranted, another common misconception - women didn't wear pants because pants were men's wear; any law specifying that they couldn't weren't needed, it simply wasn't done and virtually no-one except the spoiled daughters of the upper classes even thought about it.
Scott's observations are typical of his class at his time and place in history: ignorant of class conditions and life for the working class and peasantry, he could from his lofty perch only see what was available to the daughters of the bourgeoisie and the upper classes.
Like many of his station, he confuses material wealth and standards with "freedom" and completely fail to understand what social roles were and why they existed in a regimented society, or why they developed in the first place.
Since feminism originated partly among marxist and partly among upper class bourgeoisie during the late Victorian era, it originally came to adopt the victorian view and sentiment re: sex (in both its meanings) and propriety while at the same time pushing hard for a meaning of "freedom" that essentially boils down "Me myself and I am woman and can do whatever I please and shame on you for not letting me and I'll call for Daddy if you don't obey me!"- Today, the role of Daddy is of course played by the State instead.
The classical liberals and working class women who instead fought for things like equal pay for equal work, pregnancy not being cause for termination, and exposing the double standards of capitalist bourgeois gentry (such as priests and other pillars of the community frequenting the county whore house while tut-tutting unmarried women getting pregnant...) saw the feminists for what they were and are: spoiled girls who wants everything they point at, at no cost, no effort and no risk and no competition.
Also, see my answer(s) to SCA - and do read her comments, she is one of few women who dares speak openly about the negative sides of feminism and the corresponding personality types - and she always calls people on what she sees as BS, in a nice way; a valuable and much underappreciated trait in present day society.
i agree absolutely with your last sentence. but it's not just a modern phenomenon. all religious frenzy is the same. all cults produce madness.
i never thought, even as an adolescent, that men had fewer burdens.
but it's undeniably true that when women can easily support themselves even via non-professional employment, they can be much choosier about longterm pairings. stable societies are built on families. but families are often not very healthy little units. all of world literature is built on that unhappy truth.
Oh I know full well from both my own personal and the wife's experience how "freedom" (from responsibility and consequences) affects men and women.
The man is too nice, too soft and too pliant so the woman loses respect for him and sees him as a mähä (untranslatable, I'm afraid). The woman has been conditioned to think self-assured cocksureness is the same as confidence and self-esteem and that the world owes her success in anything she does, free of effort, charge or consequence.
Cue swedish men age 30 and younger more and more opting for women from eatern Europe and SE Asia, and swedish women acting so spoiled, so bratty and so promiscuous no-one wants them ones their looks starts going. Not as a majority on the whole, but a majority of the "beautiful people" displayed as normal by the media shows this behaviour.
I'm sure the phenomenon is increasingly common all over the West by now.
Recall the feminists you mentioned: up until the late 1970s (in Sweden, and I believe, the US) "feminism" was the radical lunatic fringe of the Women's Liberation movement, excluded and ostracised from all serious debate and for good reasons.
Since what few legal and formal restraints for women holding certain positions solely based on sex were mostly removed by then, Women's Lib or its various local variants called it a day and job's a good'un and got on with things.
Feminists, being not driven by anything real outside their heads but only their visions (in all three senses of the word) and ideology and personality-type, didn't stop: they instead "hibernated" during the 1980s and re-emerged in the 1990s having fully adopted postmodernist, poststructuralist and other anti-reality founded philosophical ideas (what affronts me personally is how feminism has co-opted the liberation movement's landwinnings as its own, when instead everything feminists have been doing since the 1920s has been based on their hatred for normal women - they may target men with their rethoric but they really hate women).
My wife said to me back in the 1980’s when we were raising our kids and working are arses off, “if I get anymore liberated it’s going to kill me”. She’s one of the women they love to hate. She was always busy and so was I and the kids. But as a mother and at the time she was not liking their ideas about being liberated. It just meant more work on top of being a mother and home maker. Men have to help out at home or it’s not going to work. Otherwise let the wife be mom and home maker if that’s what she wants, (I know the kids need parents) moms can go to work when the kids are in school if that’s what they want, or stay home and teach them. If we had it to do over, it would have been a hardship to only have one wage earner, but today it would be well worth the sacrifice.
"...everything feminists have been doing since the 1920s has been based on their hatred for normal women - they may target men with their rethoric but they really hate women)."
-----------------------
tell me about it.
i think i was the only girl i know who found that great liberatory novel "the awakening" by kate chopin nothing but an extended temper tantrum by a woman who did everyone a favor by finally drowning herself.
so that plants along the water flow get more water and grow? but bill gates is cutting and burying entire trees. so they really don’t want plants. or do they?
so i get that it would restore old water ways. but how does that save us all from doom? what exactly will be the chain of positive effects?
You need to read them more carefully: it's not *us* they want to save from doom! Rather, it's Gaia they are worried about.
What they have in mind for us is The Great Die-off : a 15th century level of energy usage necessitates a 15th century level of population. That means a 95% die off.
Restoring everything to an imaginary pristine pre-human state to these people equals an absolute moral Good, trumping all other concerns or consequences.
The greens mostly majored in subjects like gender studies and black history, and have not clue one about anything related to science or math...It's all a giant mystery to them, so this is what we get when they become powerful in Government...Complete idiocy on all fronts...
I can’t help but suspect that the leakage of methane from LNG tankers crossing oceans must pale in comparison to the emissions from government ministers bloviating at conferences.
I think the sooner we face it the better: there is no such thing as green energy. Everything has a cost and an impact. That doesn't mean however that we should all start freezing and starving or dismantling many years of progress in technology and industry.
Rick Rule has the best take: we need more energy of all kinds: wind, solar, nuclear, gas, oil, etc. and each one used where most appropriate.
That's not a new concept, though, nor is it difficult to apply. I bought my first solar panel (a completely unsubsidized device, using nothing but my own money) back in 1980, because it made economic sense in my particular situation.
Get rid of all the subsidies and all of the mandates regarding " ' "renewable energy" ' " and then we can talk about doing what makes actual sense.
Perhaps they are counting on general ignorance about what LNG actually is, or are even subject to that ignorance themselves. I'm not a total doofus, but I was unaware that LNG is actually methane (so is natural gas, it turns out – another surprise!) Methane is so scary to climate apocalyzers that they want to put diapers on cows to filter their farts, and turn omnivorous homo sapiens into vegans.
I just spent an interesting couple of minutes with Alexa exploring the differences between natural gas, LNG, and propane (my heating fuel). According to this not-entirely-trustworthy source, natural gas and LNG are not chemically distinct; LNG has just been cooled to liquid form for more efficient transportation and storage, although it tends to have fewer trace amounts of stuff like sulfur. If this is accurate, then is the greater carbon cost of LNG mostly due to the energy-intensive extraction process plus the leakage during transportation and storage? Alexa is cagey about comparing the amount of CO2 emissions at the endpoint while acknowledging the leakage issue of LNG.
I'm a retired natural gas transmission pipeline control room supervisor. The pipeline I ran also owned and operated an LNG facility which was used strictly for peak-shaving (augmenting pipeline capacity in periods of high demand).
Believe me, LNG is not cost-competitive with non-liquefied natural gas from a pipeline. Liquefaction involves cooling the gas to something like -260°F (-162°C). This takes a substantial amount of energy. In the process, most of the heavier hydrocarbons are removed, leaving mostly methane. Because heavier hydrocarbons are more energy dense, it takes a larger volume of LNG to provide the same amount of heat. On a very cold winter day when gas distribution systems are already struggling, the requirement to move even more gas is obviously a problem.
When LNG is used, it is vaporized using a lot of heat, then further energy is needed to compress it to pressures required to get the gas where it is needed. The idea that LNG is in any way comparable to normal pipelined gas, economically or environmentally, is just nuts.
BTW, there is no real "leakage". The LNG is kept at a stable temperature by allowing any heat to "boil off" vapor, which can be used as fuel or compressed for storage.
Thanks for the explanation. When I read that it had to be cooled to such extreme low temperatures, I could not conceive of how that could be cost-effective.
Since all economic transitions are driven by experts and professionals, we may be sure that they know what they do. More expensive electricity will open up a new market for energy-saving devices and installations. Increased emissions will be great for a new market of household and industrial air purifiers. Both will bring about millions of jobs in certification, licensing, export/import regulations, mandatory maintenance, specialized waste disposal, and so on. Closing down coal mines will consume $$ millions. After 10-12 years, the same mines will be reopened due to shortage of renewable energy sources - $$ millions more. Circular economy.
Thank you for your article. The absurdities you describe are similar to what is happening in California, USA. A large nuclear plant in southern California (SONGS) was needlessly shut down at the end of January, 2012 instead of undergoing straightforward repairs. The same businesses went after Diablo Canyon in 2016 when they announced a plan to close Diablo Canyon in 2025. An independent nonprofit, Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) was the lone party of 55 that advocated for extended Diablo Canyon operations before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC.) Now, there is a coalition backing extended operations at Diablo Canyon. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the CPUC will grant Diablo Canyon extended operations on November 30, 2023. For details, see: https://cgnp.org/sb-846-update/ Just as in Germany, the businesses desiring nuclear plant shutdowns are fossil fuel interests. Just as in Germany, they employ public relations tools to maintain "business as usual" - dominance of fossil-fired generation. After all, "it's just business."
From a climate buerocrat point of view these scientific details don't matter. Leakage of LNG from its source in the US to Germany doesn't count into the CO² statistics of Germany so it's not relevant for "the plan"
Really it makes sense. How can such a complex energy gobbling production process, as required to produce and transport LNG, compete with the low complexity, low energy requirements of producing coal? Might we gain more advantage over emissions at the exhost stage, as has been done with cars? Or has that been tapped out? Still, I can't help but think we focus on new technologically complex goals more because we are exploring exciting new ideas than because these new ideas are actually better than the old ones... thinking of that old saying: 'KISS', you know, keep it simple silly!
“ It is like they want to be the world’s greatest energy transition retards.
They are. No retard like a green energy government retard. Ok, maybe a health expert government retard.
Haha! Yessiree!
There’s pretty stiff competition out there across all spectrums these days.
Mind-boggling!
Yup...take a number.
I think when we call government ministers of any kind 'retards' we do ourselves a disservice because we ascribe to stupidity things that may have other motives.
First of all, the article Eugyppius quotes is an analysis of the greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) produced in and exported from the United States.
It's not an analysis of the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from any source! Natural gas is mostly a byproduct of oil production. I won't go further because I'm no where near an oil expert or geological expert.
Secondly, the US did not want Germany buying gas from Russia via pipeline (or any other way). They wanted Germany buying US exported gas. They succeeded in achieving this goal after the Russian pipeline was rendered unusable.
It would be very interesting to hear why Germany agreed to buy natural gas from such a 'dirty' source as the article describes, i.e., what were the politics behind this decision. PS: Germany approached Canada but our dear leader couldn't come up with a business case!
So in this case, we should not ascribe to stupidity that which can be ascribed to politics, even though the politics may be stupid.
True. Much of the stupidity is disguised malfeasance.
Don't know if this tops it or not, it's a competition no-one wants to win anyway:
Swedish greens of all sorts wants to (drum roll) demolish all hydro-electric power dams in Sweden, and all other dams too.
Hydro is about 1/3 of our power production. The other dams (thousands of small ones) are crucial to avoid flooding every spring. F.e. the lake nearby where my mother lives varies in surface height with as much as 5 meters between snow melt floods in Spring and late Summer. Should it cease to be regulated, half the town would be flooded every year.
That's to say nothing about what would happen to every building and town built close to water after every water-way was finally regulated and controlled a little over a century ago. Good-bye to large parts of Stockholm and Gothenburg, for starters.
I say again, as I have said for 20+ years: the rise of Green parties correlates with the shuttering of mental institutions, as does the rise of feminism and multiculturalism.
It is high time to turn both clock and calendar back a century, and start over.
Banksters who run things now and their deindustrialization, Great Reset plan for their Western Empire. Malthusian Psychopath Parasites.
Nice one for mentioning Malthus. To quote Nick Hudson, “Sustainability is the Malthusian proposition in drag”
Malthus never recommended anything related to population control. He merely observed that population grows geometrically (exponentially), whereas food production growth tended to be arithmetical (linear). This made recurrent population limitation through famine inevitable. Of course he made the observation at the start of the modern era and failed to foresee the advances in agriculture that rendered his insight null and void.
It’s import to remember that his motivation was to counter the enthusiasm of Utopianism which he detested. Malthus was a sceptic who thought the road to hell really was paved with good intentions and would, I suspect, be very much at home with us here in this - and similar - Substacks. He’d almost certainly have seen through the utopian nonsense of net zero and government Covid response.
Nick Hudson is THE BOMB!:
WHY Centralization is a DISASTER and threatens us all - Nick Hudson explains! Ivor Cummins:
youtube.com/watch?v=tqV2fo4aQIs
there's a basic problem in life that can't be fixed. more individual liberty is always bad for the stability of society.
when women can take care of themselves, fewer men can find longterm mates.
the worst job i ever had was with a professional feminist organization. they were horrible people and they despised me for being straight and at the time married.
but the concept that women should be able to choose their own life paths and be able to afford to do so is not wrong. it's just not cost-free.
Don't know what you're getting the association from, that equality before the law (the original women's lib, classical liberal, labour union and workers movement as well as democratic nationalist position) would cause problems, or that women in the West were less free than men; the latter notion is an ahistorical feminist revisionist talking point so embedded that it has become truth.
Men were under the same if not an even more rigid social structure, based on class, income and family name/reputation (plus ethniccity, religion et c).
The problem is that insanity has been tolerated, then elevated, as a virtue.
Women may not have been less free than men in the west but they had many fewer choices. A few hundred years ago, actually maybe only 100 years ago, the only way for a woman to advance her social/financial position was through marriage. It's no wonder that some women married for money. I believe it was Sir Walter Scott that recognized this.
I can guarantee you, perhpaps not so much in the west these days, that there are still women in abusive domestic relationships whose only choice is grin and bear it or take your chances on the street, literally.
An unmarried woman also had limited choices: enter a convent or enter a brothel. The legend of St. Nicholas had it that he saved 3 sisters from a brothel by providing them with golden balls that they were able to use a dowery.
I agree that it hasn't been easy for men either but there is a pecking order on the planet; it's usually the strongest at the top and that hasn't in the past been women or children.
DEI, or more aptly DIE, has pushed the pendulum way to far however.
The very, very top are a few men (dark triad traits, mostly) then follows all women (and children). The rest of the pyramid, bearing by far the most weight, have always been the regular man
I think you're right about the few men to top. I agree that regular men bear the most weight although I still think regular women have the least choices.
Yes, choices, men can die earlier from their chosen line of work in more ways than women can. And, no, men cannot choose not to work and be fail to be self-sufficient, a luxury only allowed to the fairer sex. Lest we forget, “Women and children first,” only after the smart elite are not on the boat in the first place.
"...the only way for a woman to advance her social/financial position was through marriage."
Completely false. Total historical revisionism.
Sincere question: can you give examples and expand on your comment (and please don't count royalty)? Like I said, Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832) was the person I read who made the observation.
Certainly.
Swedish women could run businesses, own businesses, and inherit businesses, go into professions, own land and livestock and so on - not completely "free" as today but neither could men. And wear pants if the situation warranted, another common misconception - women didn't wear pants because pants were men's wear; any law specifying that they couldn't weren't needed, it simply wasn't done and virtually no-one except the spoiled daughters of the upper classes even thought about it.
Scott's observations are typical of his class at his time and place in history: ignorant of class conditions and life for the working class and peasantry, he could from his lofty perch only see what was available to the daughters of the bourgeoisie and the upper classes.
Like many of his station, he confuses material wealth and standards with "freedom" and completely fail to understand what social roles were and why they existed in a regimented society, or why they developed in the first place.
Since feminism originated partly among marxist and partly among upper class bourgeoisie during the late Victorian era, it originally came to adopt the victorian view and sentiment re: sex (in both its meanings) and propriety while at the same time pushing hard for a meaning of "freedom" that essentially boils down "Me myself and I am woman and can do whatever I please and shame on you for not letting me and I'll call for Daddy if you don't obey me!"- Today, the role of Daddy is of course played by the State instead.
The classical liberals and working class women who instead fought for things like equal pay for equal work, pregnancy not being cause for termination, and exposing the double standards of capitalist bourgeois gentry (such as priests and other pillars of the community frequenting the county whore house while tut-tutting unmarried women getting pregnant...) saw the feminists for what they were and are: spoiled girls who wants everything they point at, at no cost, no effort and no risk and no competition.
Also, see my answer(s) to SCA - and do read her comments, she is one of few women who dares speak openly about the negative sides of feminism and the corresponding personality types - and she always calls people on what she sees as BS, in a nice way; a valuable and much underappreciated trait in present day society.
i agree absolutely with your last sentence. but it's not just a modern phenomenon. all religious frenzy is the same. all cults produce madness.
i never thought, even as an adolescent, that men had fewer burdens.
but it's undeniably true that when women can easily support themselves even via non-professional employment, they can be much choosier about longterm pairings. stable societies are built on families. but families are often not very healthy little units. all of world literature is built on that unhappy truth.
Oh I know full well from both my own personal and the wife's experience how "freedom" (from responsibility and consequences) affects men and women.
The man is too nice, too soft and too pliant so the woman loses respect for him and sees him as a mähä (untranslatable, I'm afraid). The woman has been conditioned to think self-assured cocksureness is the same as confidence and self-esteem and that the world owes her success in anything she does, free of effort, charge or consequence.
Cue swedish men age 30 and younger more and more opting for women from eatern Europe and SE Asia, and swedish women acting so spoiled, so bratty and so promiscuous no-one wants them ones their looks starts going. Not as a majority on the whole, but a majority of the "beautiful people" displayed as normal by the media shows this behaviour.
I'm sure the phenomenon is increasingly common all over the West by now.
Recall the feminists you mentioned: up until the late 1970s (in Sweden, and I believe, the US) "feminism" was the radical lunatic fringe of the Women's Liberation movement, excluded and ostracised from all serious debate and for good reasons.
Since what few legal and formal restraints for women holding certain positions solely based on sex were mostly removed by then, Women's Lib or its various local variants called it a day and job's a good'un and got on with things.
Feminists, being not driven by anything real outside their heads but only their visions (in all three senses of the word) and ideology and personality-type, didn't stop: they instead "hibernated" during the 1980s and re-emerged in the 1990s having fully adopted postmodernist, poststructuralist and other anti-reality founded philosophical ideas (what affronts me personally is how feminism has co-opted the liberation movement's landwinnings as its own, when instead everything feminists have been doing since the 1920s has been based on their hatred for normal women - they may target men with their rethoric but they really hate women).
My wife said to me back in the 1980’s when we were raising our kids and working are arses off, “if I get anymore liberated it’s going to kill me”. She’s one of the women they love to hate. She was always busy and so was I and the kids. But as a mother and at the time she was not liking their ideas about being liberated. It just meant more work on top of being a mother and home maker. Men have to help out at home or it’s not going to work. Otherwise let the wife be mom and home maker if that’s what she wants, (I know the kids need parents) moms can go to work when the kids are in school if that’s what they want, or stay home and teach them. If we had it to do over, it would have been a hardship to only have one wage earner, but today it would be well worth the sacrifice.
"...everything feminists have been doing since the 1920s has been based on their hatred for normal women - they may target men with their rethoric but they really hate women)."
-----------------------
tell me about it.
i think i was the only girl i know who found that great liberatory novel "the awakening" by kate chopin nothing but an extended temper tantrum by a woman who did everyone a favor by finally drowning herself.
what’s the rationale for destructing water dams?
Restoring water-ways and lakes to their natural state, which is a necessary measure to save the planet, according to the Greens.
Hence the reference to mental institutions: they are insane.
Greens really do worship Gaia, a cult almost more destructive and some others. They really should live in remote caves and leave the rest of us alone.
so that plants along the water flow get more water and grow? but bill gates is cutting and burying entire trees. so they really don’t want plants. or do they?
so i get that it would restore old water ways. but how does that save us all from doom? what exactly will be the chain of positive effects?
You need to read them more carefully: it's not *us* they want to save from doom! Rather, it's Gaia they are worried about.
What they have in mind for us is The Great Die-off : a 15th century level of energy usage necessitates a 15th century level of population. That means a 95% die off.
Restoring everything to an imaginary pristine pre-human state to these people equals an absolute moral Good, trumping all other concerns or consequences.
Sounds like a grand edition to the depop agenda via drownings
😂😂😂fantastic comment. Correlation/causation...chicken/egg?
And CO2 is not a problem…
Of course...the current CO2 levels are quite low by historical standards, and plant life would prefer them much higher...
Never was...
The greens mostly majored in subjects like gender studies and black history, and have not clue one about anything related to science or math...It's all a giant mystery to them, so this is what we get when they become powerful in Government...Complete idiocy on all fronts...
It's amazing the only thing that surpasses their stupidity is their corruption.
I can’t help but suspect that the leakage of methane from LNG tankers crossing oceans must pale in comparison to the emissions from government ministers bloviating at conferences.
One like is not nearly indicative of my love of this post. To infinity and beyond…🤣
Lolol
It's always been a grift and power grab, facts be damned!
Only Germany would shut down its nuclear power to burn more coal.
I think the sooner we face it the better: there is no such thing as green energy. Everything has a cost and an impact. That doesn't mean however that we should all start freezing and starving or dismantling many years of progress in technology and industry.
Rick Rule has the best take: we need more energy of all kinds: wind, solar, nuclear, gas, oil, etc. and each one used where most appropriate.
That's not a new concept, though, nor is it difficult to apply. I bought my first solar panel (a completely unsubsidized device, using nothing but my own money) back in 1980, because it made economic sense in my particular situation.
Get rid of all the subsidies and all of the mandates regarding " ' "renewable energy" ' " and then we can talk about doing what makes actual sense.
Perhaps they are counting on general ignorance about what LNG actually is, or are even subject to that ignorance themselves. I'm not a total doofus, but I was unaware that LNG is actually methane (so is natural gas, it turns out – another surprise!) Methane is so scary to climate apocalyzers that they want to put diapers on cows to filter their farts, and turn omnivorous homo sapiens into vegans.
I just spent an interesting couple of minutes with Alexa exploring the differences between natural gas, LNG, and propane (my heating fuel). According to this not-entirely-trustworthy source, natural gas and LNG are not chemically distinct; LNG has just been cooled to liquid form for more efficient transportation and storage, although it tends to have fewer trace amounts of stuff like sulfur. If this is accurate, then is the greater carbon cost of LNG mostly due to the energy-intensive extraction process plus the leakage during transportation and storage? Alexa is cagey about comparing the amount of CO2 emissions at the endpoint while acknowledging the leakage issue of LNG.
I'm a retired natural gas transmission pipeline control room supervisor. The pipeline I ran also owned and operated an LNG facility which was used strictly for peak-shaving (augmenting pipeline capacity in periods of high demand).
Believe me, LNG is not cost-competitive with non-liquefied natural gas from a pipeline. Liquefaction involves cooling the gas to something like -260°F (-162°C). This takes a substantial amount of energy. In the process, most of the heavier hydrocarbons are removed, leaving mostly methane. Because heavier hydrocarbons are more energy dense, it takes a larger volume of LNG to provide the same amount of heat. On a very cold winter day when gas distribution systems are already struggling, the requirement to move even more gas is obviously a problem.
When LNG is used, it is vaporized using a lot of heat, then further energy is needed to compress it to pressures required to get the gas where it is needed. The idea that LNG is in any way comparable to normal pipelined gas, economically or environmentally, is just nuts.
BTW, there is no real "leakage". The LNG is kept at a stable temperature by allowing any heat to "boil off" vapor, which can be used as fuel or compressed for storage.
Thanks for the explanation. When I read that it had to be cooled to such extreme low temperatures, I could not conceive of how that could be cost-effective.
... an LNG facility which was used strictly for peak-shaving
That would be early morning when the men are getting ready to go to work. Who knew that growing a beard could help save the planet.
VIP = very important publication.
Since all economic transitions are driven by experts and professionals, we may be sure that they know what they do. More expensive electricity will open up a new market for energy-saving devices and installations. Increased emissions will be great for a new market of household and industrial air purifiers. Both will bring about millions of jobs in certification, licensing, export/import regulations, mandatory maintenance, specialized waste disposal, and so on. Closing down coal mines will consume $$ millions. After 10-12 years, the same mines will be reopened due to shortage of renewable energy sources - $$ millions more. Circular economy.
Thank you for your article. The absurdities you describe are similar to what is happening in California, USA. A large nuclear plant in southern California (SONGS) was needlessly shut down at the end of January, 2012 instead of undergoing straightforward repairs. The same businesses went after Diablo Canyon in 2016 when they announced a plan to close Diablo Canyon in 2025. An independent nonprofit, Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) was the lone party of 55 that advocated for extended Diablo Canyon operations before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC.) Now, there is a coalition backing extended operations at Diablo Canyon. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the CPUC will grant Diablo Canyon extended operations on November 30, 2023. For details, see: https://cgnp.org/sb-846-update/ Just as in Germany, the businesses desiring nuclear plant shutdowns are fossil fuel interests. Just as in Germany, they employ public relations tools to maintain "business as usual" - dominance of fossil-fired generation. After all, "it's just business."
From a climate buerocrat point of view these scientific details don't matter. Leakage of LNG from its source in the US to Germany doesn't count into the CO² statistics of Germany so it's not relevant for "the plan"
Just don’t pee in my end of the pool.
Only Germany would shut down its nuclear power to burn more coal.
I have been eating a lot of beans and tortillas, due to mRNAs in meat. Can I help?
Gold
Plus ammo and maybe an escape boat
LNG causes up to 3 times the emissions of coal
Really it makes sense. How can such a complex energy gobbling production process, as required to produce and transport LNG, compete with the low complexity, low energy requirements of producing coal? Might we gain more advantage over emissions at the exhost stage, as has been done with cars? Or has that been tapped out? Still, I can't help but think we focus on new technologically complex goals more because we are exploring exciting new ideas than because these new ideas are actually better than the old ones... thinking of that old saying: 'KISS', you know, keep it simple silly!