top of page
  • robertfarago1

Global Warming Has Peaked!

“Amid a deluge of terrifying headlines about destructive tornadoes, blistering heat waves and DVD-sized gorilla hail, here’s a surprising bit of good news: Global carbon dioxide emissions may have peaked last year, according to a new projection.”

Need I say more? The New York Times has declared the official end to our “climate crisis.” OK, they used the word “may.”

But the study itself doesn’t equivocate. In fact, not one but two reputable scientific sources have reached the same conclusion.

We now appear to be living through the precise moment when the emissions that are responsible for climate change are starting to fall, according to new data by BloombergNEF, a research firm. This projection is in roughly in line with other estimates, including a recent report from Climate Analytics…
… the data suggests that after centuries of growth, humans are finally on the cusp of reducing the overall production of heat-trapping gases.

Goalposts moved!

"On the cusp." Well of course the NYT is going to say that.

Like every left-leaning person on the planet, like the entirety of the mainstream media, The Gray Lady is drunk on climate change Kool-Aid.

Hence the fact that article is not headline news. Nor is there any indication that The Times is calling it quits on their Armageddon-professing Climate Forward newsletter.

No surprise there. Climate change activists are less likely to climb down on regulatory-enabling climate change panic than a hunter treed by a Grizzly.

To wit: The Times gets straight back to climate change doom and gloom. Boldly!

The decline in emissions will not be swift. Even if every government and business in the world made combating climate change a top priority, it would still take at least two decades, and an estimated $215 trillion, to make a full transition to an emissions-free world.

Net zero emissions is the new buzzword, stabilization of global carbon "pollution" be damned. Ignored? Suppressed. Decried? Defunded? All of that and more.

There's No Turning Back!

If you're expecting this glorious news to curb the push for power plant-powered electric vehicles, press the brake pedal on eliminating the coal industry or get Chat GPT off it's PC soapbox, think again.

The Times is clear. We need to eliminate all fossil fuel emissions. Because… Big Oil will is evil. Record profits! New production deals! As King Henry might have said, will someone not rid me of this troublesome industry?

If not, once again, the planet will warm. Oceans will rise. Indigenous populations will be unhomed. People will starve. The Obama's $11.75m oceanfront property will be truncated.

Fossil Fuels for the Win!

Perhaps now would be a good time to point out that fossil fuels have enormous advantages over so-called clean energy. Such as...

Energy Density: Fossil fuels contain a large amount of energy in a small volume. This makes them efficient for transportation and energy production.

Reliability: Fossil fuel power plants provide a consistent and reliable source of energy, regardless of weather conditions or time of day – crucial for meeting energy demand and ensuring grid stability.

Infrastructure: The infrastructure for extracting, refining and distributing fossil fuels is well-established and widespread. It's easier and cheaper to access and utilize this infrastructure compared to developing new clean energy sources.

Cost: Fossil fuels are cheaper to produce and use than renewable energy sources. The initial investment and operating costs of fossil fuel power plants are lower than those of renewable energy.

Energy Security: America is home to 373.1b barrels of recoverable oil. We consume approximately 20m barrels per day. That's 51.08 years worth. The U.S. consumed about 27.5 Tcf of natural gas per year; our current reserves would last approximately 90 years. That's in-country, using existing technology, never mind resources available to our north and south or overseas.

Flexibility: Fossil fuel power plants can be easily scaled-up or down to meet fluctuating energy demand. Plants can make quick production adjustments to match changes in consumption.

Storage: Fossil fuels can be easily stored and used when needed. Renewable energy sources like solar and wind are intermittent and weather dependent.

Base Load Power: Fossil fuel power plants can provide continuous "base load" power to meet the minimum level of electricity demand. This is important for maintaining a stable and reliable electricity supply.

Not that you're going to see fossil fuels championed by the mainstream media or taught to children in our schools. It's the energy source that dare not speak its name. Yet powers everything you see, touch, hear and feel.

And will do for the foreseeable future, no matter where the government spends your hard-earned tax dollars. Even as Uncle Sam spends billions to modernize its nuclear weapons. Speaking of which...

Whatever Happened to Nuclear War?

This is not the first time Armageddon has driven both culture and economics. Back in the day, the prospect of nuclear war with Russia was The End Of The World As We Know It.

The prospect of human self-annihilation was a dark cloud hanging over humanity, animating international politics, seeping into our collective consciousness.

Millions of children were taught to duck and cover in the event of a nuclear blast. And then what? Uh...

The prospect of nuclear war is still there, but no one of other than fans of Fallout are paying attention. Too many "traditional" wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, where nukes were [hopefully] safely stowed away.

When Vladimir Putin "rattled the nuclear" saber, responding to America's decision to equip Ukrainians with weapons that could reach the Russian Motherland, the threat received cursory attention. Contemplating defending Taiwan, no one's talking about the domestic dangers of taking on a nuclear power.

Peak Paranoia

My point: we've reached peak paranoia.

Americans have forgotten the prospect of nuclear war, just as they've accepted the "need" to stop using fossil fuels. But they're going about their lives as if nothing cataclysmic will happen. As of this morning, they weren't wrong.

While climate change has changed the political landscape, it hasn't changed the psychological landscape.

Should it? Those who say yes underestimate the power of denial, and the gen pop's need to focus on life as it's lived. Day by day.

Click here to follow TTAE on X

58 views0 comments


bottom of page