As highlighted on this site almost ad nauseam, while massive energy poverty still exists in this world, affecting real people, now, every day, translating to death and disease, under nourishment, under education, cold nights and lack of emergency services, amongst other things, those advocating for reductions in fossil fuel use are making a very explicit trade-off between the livelihoods and potential of actual people, and attempts to somehow control the climate and ensure some future set of conditions that all experience and knowledge so far suggests we have absolutely no chance of achieving, and that may well end up .

On top of that, the double whammy of ensuring slower-than-possible progress of human development (by restricting total energy usage) while an unknown future climate promises continuing challenges to human flourishing (a constant variable in the Earth’s history – at no point was the planet ever benign and welcoming, not by any definition) means we are knowingly leaving billions without the best possible weapons to protect themselves and their families, just so elites and scientists can undertake highly tenuous experiments with very low chances of success, if any at all.

And, on top of all that, the evidence that humanity will require a massive amount of additional energy in the future, many times more than current renewables and ‘acceptable’ sources can deliver, is clear for all to see, as shown in the article below. Hence, crusades against fossil fuels will only exacerbate current energy short falls.

Humans around the world in energy poverty must be allowed to use all means necessary to get themselves out of such conditions, and in doing so deliver the added benefit of an improved ability to care for the environment and ecosystem.

Any other approach is a trade-off between gambling with hubristic experiments about ‘our’ long-term future versus delivering very real, achievable outcomes to ensure ‘their’ short-term survival.

Many alarmist and even well-intentioned first worlders are happily making this trade-off, with or without a full understanding of the misery such an approach perpetuates for billions around the world, depending on their level of Machiavellian intentions…


“We have to be more conservative, and that means two things. One is, you basically build more capacity [for renewables] so that you try to cover more,” he said. “But the other point is, what are some of the backup systems? Because sometimes, you know, let’s say the hydro reservoir or wind doesn’t show up for days … So the battery system is probably not sufficient.”

Yuen added that some “cleaner” fossil fuels such as natural gas can be used as a backup.

“Some would say that you’re perpetuating fossil fuel use. But what then is the trade-off between people actually having sufficient energy or not, right?” he said.


What ‘transition’? Renewable energy is growing, but overall energy demand is growing faster – CNBC