One of the more puzzling aspects of Climate Alarmism/Fanaticism is this: While they are opposed to use of oil, gas and coal, claiming that the CO2 emitted (which they refer to as “carbon”) is harming our climate and will eventually end life as we know it on this planet. They instead favor “renewable” energy in the form of solar and wind power. What they do not explain is why they are opposed to nuclear energy, which is safe, and emits no CO2. There is the problem of spent fuel rods, but I think we have that pretty well under control. (I am aware of a certain sentiment among some readers that nuclear power is not real, following as it did in the wake of nuclear bombs, which may well never have been built. I think that nuclear power is real, and one reason I think that is because Climate Alarmists are opposed to it.)
I suppose that is a little tongue-in-cheek, as I am fully aware of what they are up to, and it has nothing to do with our climate. There is no need to save the planet. We do need to control some of our destructive activities, like over-fishing, for instance. The purpose of Climate Alarmism is hidden from view, but easily discerned: To impoverish us, reduce our numbers, and prevent development on continents occupied by darker skinned people. Europe is now gearing up for a cold winter, and massive supplies of liquefied natural gas await on tankers for the inevitable emergency caused by failure of wind and solar to keep people warm and factories running. Businesses have shut down or moved elsewhere due to the high cost of energy. This is no surprise. You might even say that this is the objective.
One of the least developed, poorest nations on the planet is the Congo. Most people there rely on subsistence farming and use charcoal for cooking. To make charcoal, trees are cut down and heated at a low temperature underground, or by some other means kept away from oxygen. What’s left is mostly carbon which burns slowly and evenly, producing uniform heat so that people can do other stuff while cooking. When I learned that charcoal production threatens forests in that country, I had to wonder why they do not convert to something cheaper and more reliable: Natural gas, or at least propane.
To do so would require investment in infrastructure, and I doubt very much that the people behind World Bank and International Monetary Fund would make money available for investment in (gasp!) fossil fuels. There is a dam being built to allow for hydroelectric power, managed by Warren Buffet’s son, Howard. That will certainly help some.
The United States, Britain, and China all got wealthy by use of cheap energy. That’s really all that Africa needs to jump start their poorest countries, allow them access to tools, cars and trucks and tractors, and consumer goods. Soon follows investment in infrastructure, roads and bridges, and before you know it, you have a higher standard of living for everyone. It is not magic. It is fundamental economics, that cheap energy is the key to growth and prosperity.
But what if your real goal as a Climate Alarmist is to prevent growth and prosperity? Then it would make sense that you attack cheap energy in all forms, oil, gas, coal, and, oh yeah, nuclear. This is not hard to figure out, and explains why there is so much power behind the scenes backing these crazy climate scientists, the IPCC, and goofballs like Greta Thunberg and Bill McKibben. All news concerning Climate Change is biased, all skeptics are censored, all politicians pay the piper. It’s a deliberate attempt to inflict massive suffering and harm on us. Like Covid, it hatches forth from places like City of London, the Vatican, Washington, unseen faces, unimaginable power.
I do not believe in most coincidences, even as I know they happen now and then.** The movie China Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda at her peak of annoyance, was released on March 16, 1979. The movie is about a fictional nuclear power plant that experiences a meltdown due to improper management and some maneuvering to keep it open even as it was known there was trouble. The “Syndrome” is the idea that once a melt down starts, it will not stop until it reaches the other side of the world. That is nonsense, of course. But fear mixed with propaganda is deadly. Nuclear power is safe. No one died at Fukushima itself, and sources there say that 573 people died in nearby communities in “disaster-related” manners. I do not know what that means. Jemin Desai and others reported on nuclear power deaths in Environmental Progress in February 2020, saying that as of that date the entire death toll for the world-wide nuclear power industry was a little over a hundred, for the entire history of the technology.
Twelve days after the China Syndrome was released, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant had its partial melt down, apparently a series of small errors that became a major accident. Again, no one died in this disaster, though there were increased reports of thyroid cancer, a less deadly and more treatable illness with a death toll of less than 1% of victims. I read the Wikipedia page on TMI, and while of course over my head, I was looking for signs of sabotage. Valves that should have been shut were left open, and those that should have been open were closed. The control panel operator (Homer Simpson’s job) missed some flashing lights, or the lights did not flash.
Of course it is all possible, but is it also possible that the anti-nuclear power movement was just an early version of Climate Alarmism? Again, the coincidence of a melt down twelve days after release of a propaganda film is too much for me to buy. Something is fishy.
By the way, a large part of the fear is that the nuclear power plants will explode, Hiroshima style. That’s irrational, and it is hard to overcome irrational fear. But if people are sincere in wanting to eliminate fossil fuels, nuclear would be the way to go.
**For instance, while a sophomore in high school, our geometry teacher, as a lesson for us, invited all of us to write down the numbers 1-9 in any order so long as each number was used only once. He did so as well, and when we were all done, he revealed what he had written down. The odds of any of us having written down the exact sequence as he did were 9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2, or one in 362,880. I had done so. He was shocked. So was I. That was a coincidence, a real one.