Beware the Green energy propaganda machine
Beware the Green energy propaganda machine
It is all based on incorrect assumptions that they refuse to acknowledge.
A very sizable amount of the information in the media and social media about energy is little more than Green propaganda. Some of it is very obvious, but most of it is cleverly disguised as objective expert opinion.
Back in the 1980s and early 90s, you could be fairly sure that energy experts were primarily focused on… energy. Of course, they would have their opinion, but that opinion would be balanced by an attempt to stay out of the political fray. And most energy experts deliberately stayed away from contentious issues like climate and public policy.
Those days are gone, and this is not by accident. It is the result of a change in organizational and individual self-interest. It has nothing to do with actual concern for climate change, the environment, or renewable energy.
Energy experts are following the money.
I believe that a very significant percentage of the media, energy organizations, and energy writers have made a very conscious choice:
If I use the correct buzzwords and avoid questioning critical assumptions, I can get clicks, media exposure, and financing.
If I do not do so, I will be largely ignored, and I will fail in my chosen career.
The result is self-censorship. To promote their own career, hobby or the long-term financial viability of their organization, most energy experts have voluntarily chosen to be ideological spokespersons rather than objective experts and free thinkers.
See also my other posts on Green energy policies:
The Greens have a lot of Green
The Green energy movement portrays itself as a small cluster of activists with “good intentions” who are battling massive corporations to save humanity. In the 1960s and 1970s, this was a plausible argument, but it is nowhere near true in the 21st Century. The reality is that virtually all the money and media are on the side of the Greens or the Green-adjacent.
“Global climate finance” which combines public and private spending to mitigate climate disaster is now over $1 trillion per year and rising each year. Much of this is private “investment” that is required by government mandates and ESG guidelines. Very little of this is “investment” in the proper sense. It is more like a massive military build-up in preparation for war than it is a profitable energy investment.
Just as bad is the billions being “invested” by billionaires who use their influence over non-profit foundations and the media to undermine the moral legitimacy of fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro-electric energy, and promote some form of Green energy policies.
Incorrect assumptions
Green energy policies make a lot of sense when you start with certain key assumptions. They make no sense when you realize that those assumptions are completely (or largely) incorrect.
I will keep this list to the most egregious assumptions:
All the big money and institutions are against the Green energy transition.
There is a climate emergency (or climate crisis or climate apocalypse or whatever wording that you choose)
We must act now to <insert the phrase>
Scientist agree that <insert the phrase>
There is a scientific consensus that <insert the phrase>
There is no alternative to <insert the phrase>
Anyone who disagrees with me is a “climate denier”
We must achieve global NetZero by 2050.
We must radically reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Solar and wind are the cheapest form of energy
The only thing keeping the fossil fuels industry going is government subsidies.
Increased solar and wind capacity reduce usage of fossil fuels.
Cost is the only problem holding back increased renewables, batteries, and electric cars, so decreasing prices will inevitably solve the problem.
Solar and wind are compatible with electrifying transportation and everything else.
All we need to succeed are more subsidies and mandates for renewables.
Example X of increased solar, wind, electric vehicles, or battery production shows that we are accomplishing our goals.
Example X of decreased cost for solar, wind, or batteries shows that we are accomplishing our goals.
Example X that some nation or corporation promises about what they will do in the future shows that we are accomplishing our goals.
Every one of the above phrases is false and extremely misleading, but it gets clicks, donations, and media coverage, so “experts” keep repeating them. And then useful idiots repeat them, so many if not most people believe that there must be some truth to them.
Some of the people who peddle these false assumptions style themselves as “Eco-Modernists” or energy “experts” who are more reasonable than ideological Greens. Typically, they consider themselves “Eco-Modernist” because they support nuclear power or GMOs, but differ in no other fundamental way from Greens.
Yes, they are more reasonable than ideological Greens, but they advocate much the same policies. They are actually just a lighter shade of Green.
I would argue that unless you advocate for a rapid expansion of a blend of natural gas, nuclear, and hydro, then you are not an “Eco-Modernist” or an energy “expert.” Once you see the logic of this strategy, the entire point of Green energy policies collapses.
Evidence that assumptions are incorrect
People get very defensive when you question their assumptions, particularly when their career and sense of morality are at stake. I am not going to provide evidence in this article for why the assumptions are wrong, because I know that it will make this a much longer article and it will persuade no one.
I encourage all readers to:
Not assume all the above statements are correct. Much of the above is just logical fallacies.
Seek out contrarians and assess their evidence without worrying about their ideological credentials. If you are discounting a person because they believe X, you are missing the point.
Do your own research. Energy systems are complex, but not so complex that a reasonably intelligent person cannot understand it.
The Dangers of the Green Energy transition
So you may think to yourself, what is the big deal? Maybe, they get a little over-zealous, but they still have good intentions. And, after all, everyone makes mistakes, right?
The reason is that I believe Green energy policies are the single biggest threat to continuing global prosperity. Green energy policies will inevitably fail, and the attempt to do so will inflict grave consequences on the world. And it already has in Europe where Green energy policies have been a significant factor in the virtual economic stagnation since 2007 (as measured by GDP per capita).
This is an example of our future if we let it happen.
I will go into more detail in other posts, but I believe that the Green Energy transition:
Will cost tens of trillions of dollars (spending is now over $1 trillion per year and growing)
Will have only a tiny effect on future global temperatures (i.e. far less than one degree)
Will inevitably fail to get anywhere Net Zero by 2050 or any other year (unless there is a global catastrophe such as an asteroid impact or they concede the use of other energy sources)
Will slow down and potentially choke off economic growth in wealthy nations
Will particularly hurt the poor, working class, and racial minorities in those nations
Will make industrialization in developing nations impossible (unless they use other energy sources)
Is completely unnecessary.
Worse, supporters of the Green energy transition are completely unwilling to acknowledge failure regardless of results. If unrestrained by other political actors, they will keep pushing until they completely destroy the material progress that took us centuries to build.
And even after the collapse, most Greens will just say that we did not push hard enough.
Green Marketing
I must give them credit. The Greens have a brilliant marketing strategy. They have convinced a sizeable portion of voters that we all face a stark choice:
Global apocalypse, or
Full implementation of the Green energy policy
According to the Greens, there is no other choice. Well, I am here to tell you that there are very viable alternatives to both outcomes. And Greens do not want you to know about it.
Don’t believe the hype. Green energy policies have failed and will continue to fail.
There is an alternative
Fortunately, there is an alternative. We can get there if only we are willing to question our prior assumptions.
Do you have the courage to do so?
See also my other posts on Green energy policies:
Michael, I love your longterm thinking and scholarship.
Excellent post. What people forget is that the most powerful force for raising living standards has been and always will be investment by businesses in things that increase productivity - new and better equipment and factories, R&D to create better products and processes, and employee training.
Investment requires savings, and our net savings are far lower than in the past and not unlimited. To the extent we divert investment from what raises productivity toward what has no effect on productivity but merely reduces CO2 output, living standards will stop growing.
What people do at work counts! Despite losing WW2 and absorbing massive destruction of their infrastructure and skilled workforce, both Germany and Japan, within a few decades took over a big piece of the US markets for autos, specialty chemicals, cameras, consumer electronics of all types, precision equipment, and other things. That was because, as losers of the war, they were forbidden to produce any kind of output that had military applications. While our best engineers took jobs at Lockheed, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and other aerospace and military related companies, their best engineers got jobs at Toyota, BMW, VW, Sony, Panasonic, etc., and came up with better designed and made products than what US companies could create. US consumers took note, and bought from them instead.
With the trillions of government money that green companies have to spend, they can outbid other outfits for engineers and scientists. We might produce less CO2, but other than that, the progress in living standards we’ve been used to for centuries will stop.
Please see this post for more: https://economicsreimagined.substack.com/p/what-people-do-at-work-counts-1