NOTE: This post was previously titled “Solving energy poverty by discouraging the use of energy…”

Updated 29/10/2021

Cognitive dissonance is a theory in social psychology. It refers to the mental conflict that occurs when a person’s behaviours and beliefs do not align.

Medical news today

In the article referenced below we see another (although this is one of the best I’ve seen) in the long list of examples of cognitive dissonance that feature something like “oh my god there’s terrible energy poverty on this planet, it’s so important we address this” right alongside “we should also stop using traditional energy sources because we need to reduce emissions,” without even blinking…

To spell it out, in this case the writers (who just happen to be two of Australia’s wealthiest people) are expressing the opinion that they would like to help reduce energy poverty while at the very same time advocating for policies and processes that make energy poverty worse, given they remove supply options from the equation.

Again: reducing CO2 emissions = utilizing less fossil fuel than economically possible = more expensive energy than would otherwise be the case = more energy poverty.

If you restrict the supply of something (in this case energy, from any source) its price will go up. Also see E – Economic Scarcity.

If they are genuine about wanting to address energy poverty why not use all energy options??? No one is asking them to restrict their investment in and development of their preferred energy sources…

We all know why: because they are prioritizing an attempt to somehow alter the future climate over using all means necessary to assist today’s energy poor, no matter how they try to spin it to the contrary.

If a poor soul with almost no energy and a freezing winter approaching wanted to use fossil fuels to heat his or her home, would these guys even allow it?

Sounds ridiculous on an individual scale, right, yet it becomes acceptable to them when extended to entire populations and regions, which is exactly what they are encouraging. But we must forgive them, for they have such enormous, altruistic concern for the state of the climate in 2050…

And no, you can’t have it both ways, and simply replace fossil fuel use with something else and still achieve the lowest possible energy prices (which would be the best way to address energy poverty).

If you have three apples and three oranges and decide to restrict apples but offset the loss with oranges, ie. by arranging six oranges, you would still be better off if you just kept the god damned apples and had more total food to go around, ie. nine freakin pieces of fruit.

Oh yes though, I hear the socialist central planners (which, ironically, these two millionaires sound suspiciously similar to) saying that governments should just allocate resources such that all effort on fossil fuels is replaced by effort on non-fossil fuels. Great plan Mao, keep playing that one out…

And don’t even get started on what adding a carbon tax does, unless of course you have an example of something getting cheaper after tax?…

And then there’s those shouting “but the apples will kill us all one day, you just wait!!!” even as almost all civilizational indicators (and common sense) point in the opposite direction…

And just ask those currently wallowing in energy poverty about what will likely kill them…


The International Energy Agency has projected energy use in emerging markets and developing economies will increase by 50% to 2050 and will account for most future greenhouse emissions. It has also shown that if we follow existing “stated policies,” 750 million people will still have no access to electricity in 2050, with more than 95% of them in sub-Saharan Africa.

This is unacceptable, and the development of huge untapped energy resources to supply the industrial world with green hydrogen can also supply the necessary electricity, which we all take for granted, to the developing world.

Addressing this should be a priority, using renewable energy and green hydrogen, not perpetuating a dependence on fossil fuels. Importantly, there are massive resources of renewable energy in the developing world, where vast populations exist below the poverty line.


Our climate emergency requires huge amounts of green hydrogen – Nikkei Asia