04 December 2010

Why Do Greens Hate and Fear Clean, Abundant Energy?

New Republic recently admitted that, "Utopian environmentalism...is a form of escapism and disengagement from reality." The extremists scoff at science and would apparently prefer scarcity so that bureaucratic rationing will enforce a change in American lifestyles.

Instead of producing more of the cheap, abundant energy that fueled America's dynamic growth, the extremists who support and surround Obama dream of drastically cutting American consumption. _ReasonMag
Powerful green (and Luddite) lobbies believe that a source of clean and abundant energy would be an unmitigated disaster to their cause (and their livelihood). That is one reason that the Obama administration is trying so hard to bankrupt coal before clean technologies can gain a foodhold, and to prohibit shale gas and oil sands through backdoor faux environmental regulations. Abundant, clean energy would be a boon to the private sector of the economy and to economic growth. Greens and Luddites hate nothing more than a prosperous, growing private sector.

Geoffrey Styles confronted the energy starvationists on a recent webinar, where the fanatical zeal of energy starvationists and dieoff.orgiasts was on full display.
Yesterday I participated in a webinar on The Energy Collective examining the sustainability aspects of the shale gas revolution. The online audience asked good, probing questions, and if there was a theme to them, it seemed to be that somehow the sudden abundance of natural gas resulting from a novel combination of shale-exploitation technologies--as well as the technologies themselves--must at a minimum be considered a mixed blessing, if not actually too bitter a pill to swallow, because of its perceived shortcomings and the potential threat it poses to other, favored energy technologies.

The biggest uncertainties associated with shale gas don't concern the size of the resource or our ability to extract it safely, but whether we will decide to allow this to be done on a scale that would make a meaningful difference in our energy and emissions balances, or under such tight restrictions that we will forgo its game-changing potential. Like anything, shale gas drilling and fracking must be done responsibly, in accordance with state and local regulations and to industry standards that are constantly improving. Post-Deepwater Horizon, that's a much tougher sell, but it doesn't make it any less important. Shale gas isn't perfect energy, not because of any unique imperfections, but because there is no perfect energy source. It requires mature, reasonable assessments of its risks that don't assume that there is. _GeoffreyStyles
Greens and Luddites want nothing more than to starve the developed nations down to a much smaller size. Their motives are mixed, being based on both political biases and faux environmental premises. The end result -- if Salazar, Holdren, Obama, Boxer, etc. are allowed to succeed -- is an industrial collapse in the west due to "voluntary" energy starvation.

The rest of the world will survive in better condition, because China, Russia, India, Brazil, and other nations are not so foolish as to destroy their own nations' industrial and commercial capacity via energy starvation. Unfortunately, the EU and the Anglosphere may be too invested in carbon hysteria and faux environmentalism to reverse course before running aground on its own idiocy.

Previously published at Al Fin Energy

Champions of the faux environmental religions have gone on record declaring that the invention of an abundant new energy source would be an unmitigated disaster to their cause -- even if the new energy were neither polluting nor destructive to the environment or wildlife habitat. Clean, abundant energy would stimulate another round of prosperity and growth for the global economy, and that is something the faux environmentalists have worked against too hard and too long to allow to happen -- if they can help it.

More 9Dec2010: Amory Lovins:"If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. " From Mother Earth News interview. H/T Pushback and Truth about Energy.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger Sojka's Call said...

I agree that natural gas is an almost perfect energy source in that the amount of pollution is almost negligible. The main criticism in the past and what I have seen first hand in the west is the destruction of water resources from the extraction methods. Have new methodologies to extract natural gas been developed that do not use water to force the extraction of the gas?

Saturday, 04 December, 2010  
Blogger gtg723y said...

Not sure, but annother highly fought source of energy is nuclear. The largest impediment in that case is the EPA law stating that a building has to meet current code for the year it is completed not the year it breaks ground. Technology moves to fast for such a large project to be completed with a realistic ROI. If we really wanted to reduce our CO2 foot print we would go all electric and use nuclear. We would be largely energy independent, and would no longer be a leading CO2 produce..... But with all the dead weight we are supporting it is only a matter of time before we drown, but I think the time when we cut our losses is coming.

Monday, 06 December, 2010  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts