“The real ‘greenwashers’ in the climate debate are those with false solutions parading as clean, green, and scalable.”

There is growing recognition among the climate-crisis crowd that the solutions are way, way inadequate to the alleged problem. But many still see their area as the most promising and in need of more attention (i.e., government, NGO favor).

A specialist in “energy transition engineering,” Susan Krumdieck, recently wrote to the Climate Change Professionals Group:

Your government finally makes the move to declare a “Net Zero” target. So what they do is declare wind and solar the saviours! Somebody does a few calculations and quietly hands a paper to the minister showing that this won’t work as a substitution while consumption keeps growing. The minister asks; why not?

And then we get the announcements that storage is the saviour.

“Combating opposition to industrial wind using Conspiracy Theory is uninformed, immature, and even comical, were the authors not taking the subject so seriously. The opponents of industrial wind will not fall prey to assertions of being paranoid or socially ‘off.’ They are conscientious, studied, well-prepared, and ready to go the full mile. There are reasons to be fighting for your own landscape, health, community, and wildlife.”

“Conspiracy theory” is a phrase tossed around mightily these days, often when people have no rebuttal to deep and real concerns about realities that are increasingly being exposed on many levels. Consider the origins of COVID, Vaccines, President Donald Trump, to name a few. (People on both sides of the argument call each other “conspiracy prey.”) 

What one doesn’t expect is that opposition to industrial wind will be called out for Conspiracy.…

“Working together is the only way we are going to reach net zero by 2050. That’s why Shell supports Rational Middle’s latest docuseries on Net Zero. Bring your skepticism, bring your questions & join the conversation.” – Shell, Rational Middle 

Greenwashing, greenhushing, greenwishing–it’s all a mess as the anti-CO2 lobby and woke companies confront the reality of energy density and consumer requirements.

“Big Oil” companies that bought into climate alarmism/forced energy transformation have a tiger by the tail. Shell and BP most of all. And guess which two companies are on the firing line the most with the climate activists? Shell, in fact, finds itself in some legal trouble for ceding the moral high ground, rather than making a strong intellectual defense of energy density and the social good of affordable, reliable energy.…

“What if a company bases its ESG ‘politics’ not on climate model projections or ‘attribution science’ but on the consumer imperative of affordable, plentiful, reliable energy?”

“The give-away is that now that everyone knows that fossil fuels are winning and the saturation effect is closing the mitigation window, the Church [of Climate] goers will not check their premises. If they really had ‘climate anxiety,’ they would want to understand the case for CO2/climate optimism….” (RLB, below)

The exchange began on social media regarding the paper “ESG Isn’t Woke, It’s Capitalism,” by Robert Eccles. “There are a number of important points to debate about ESG from a company, investor, and public policy perspective,” he began.

This is best done with a goal of finding common ground. This webinar is another step Dan [Crowley] and I are taking to bring my Democratic side and his Republican side together on making sense of ESG.