“The planned energy transition towards ‘net zero’ using ‘renewable’ energy, will inevitably lead to massive environmental destruction, with a six-times increase in environmental damage by 2050. This is concluded by scientists in a recent study [in Nature].” (below)

Highlighting a Nature scientific report, “Spatial Energy Density of Large-scale Electricity Generation from Power Sources Worldwide” [1], Hans Wolkers, science journalist, photographer, and writer, recently reported on social media:

Renewables lead to more destruction of ecosystems

The planned energy transition towards ‘net zero’ using ‘renewable’ energy, will inevitably lead to massive environmental destruction, with a six-times increase in environmental damage by 2050. This is concluded by scientists in a recent study (https://lnkd.in/emQwZBi2).
 
The EU has adopted a net-zero strategy that comes with the installation of even more wind turbines and solar panels.…

“No-one is claiming that degrowth would be easy or non disruptive or linear.” (Jennifer Wilkins, below)

“Questions for the Degrowth proponent: Who decides what is necessary or not–and for whom and when? Isn’t this the very definition of authoritarianism?” (Bradley, below)

The “Degrowth” movement needs some critical attention. I asked some hard queries after reading this on social media from Jennifer Wilkins, who defined degrowth as follows:

Ever wondered how degrowth differs from conventional sustainability?

The goal of degrowth is universal wellbeing, to be delivered through global and local provisioning systems that are distributive and regenerative. This demands a reprioritisation of social values and behaviours toward sufficiency and sharing; it is driving development of innovative post-growth business models that focus on meeting needs and respect local biosphere boundaries, both scientific and cultural; it is guiding macroeconomic research on a coherent set of policy interventions that would balance green policies with protection of livelihoods; and it is agitating for reform of governance institutions and an increase in community agency through participative democracy.

“After advertising its efforts to produce environmentally friendly fuels from algae for over a decade, Exxon Mobil Corp. is now quietly walking away from its most heavily publicized climate solution.” (below)

Biofuel is out, leaving carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the leave-us-alone, we-are-doing-our-part “greenwashing” strategy at ExxonMobil (see tomorrow’s post). The end of algae as a substitute for crude oil comes after $350 million and 14 years of commitment. This expenditure was joined by a “green” advertising campaign around the project of at least $60 million, mostly spent between 2017 and 2019.

It was predictable. Shell, BP, and Chevron had previously thrown in the biofuels towel. And it is reminiscent of Exxon’s failed ventures in the 1970s: Office equipment. Real estate. Synthetic fuels. Shale oil. Electric motors.…

“Al Gore was right about one thing in his rant at the World Economic Forum in Davos: CO2 emissions have continued to climb and show no sign of being affected by ‘climate policy’.” (Jenkins, below)

In less than 800 words, Holman Jenkins, a Wall Street Journal opinion columnist (Feb. 4 – 5, 2023), cut the whole global warming mania down to size. Basically, it’s all over but the shouting. The science is “looking up,” (it never looked down, actually), for reasons that Jenkins only partially examines. And ExxonKnew as a PR stunt is exposed.

Below, I parse Jenkins’s op-ed with subtitles and let his words speak for themselves.

The Al Gore Problem

Al Gore was right about one thing in his rant at the World Economic Forum in Davos: CO2 emissions have continued to climb and show no sign of being affected by “climate policy.”…