By Mark Anderson
In a newly published 637-page document, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is urging sweeping changes in society’s energy infrastructure, with all the costly economic changes and regimented social adjustments that such policy overhauls would inevitably bring.
Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article
The objective? Mount the secularist summit of “net-zero” carbon emissions—in modern science’s godless world of carbon-based lifeforms—which is no easy climb.
While one wonders how to even accurately measure when that elusive atmospheric “sweet spot” is achieved so net-zero can be heralded as the new reality, this outlook is based on several challengeable assumptions, the most significant of which is the claim that crude oil, natural gas, and coal are actually “fossil fuels,” a hydrocarbon gruel cooked up in the Earth via the excruciatingly slow decomposition of flora and fauna that thrived when the dinosaurs died off from a “mass extinction” 65 million years ago.
Such an extreme time frame posits that whatever lies beneath the surface is all there is and that it will eventually run out. Therefore, we must adopt “sustainable” and “renewable” energy sources.
What few care to discuss is that the underlying fossil fuels narrative alone is such a stretch that it’s a wonder we’re even having this conversation on so-called man-made “climate change.”
That malleable concept over time replaced “global warming” and “global cooling,” with that last scenario having envisioned a big freeze rather than a hellish cauldron of doom that awaits us all lest we collectively adopt what this National Academies report calls a “whole of government” approach to close the door on fossil fuels and create a digitized world of all-electric cars, smart cities, wall-to-wall AI, and other technocratic pipedreams.
This new report, the second of two, examines the nation’s proposed “transition to a decarbonized energy system.”
“[It] focuses on gaps and barriers to implementation of net-zero policies, emphasizing the need for a strong social contract during the decades-long transition,” the report’s summary states. “The first report provided a technical and federal policy blueprint for the next 10 years, and its recommendations helped shape climate policies included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, and Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.”
The summary quotes Princeton Prof. Stephen Pacala, who chaired the committee that wrote the report:
Recent energy and climate policies are revolutionary and unprecedented in both scale and scope, putting the U.S. on or close to a path to zero net emissions by mid-century. They are also designed to realize a fair and equitable energy transition, improve human health, and revitalize U.S. manufacturing. … With so much at stake, the main challenge now is effective implementation of these policies. This report addresses how the nation can best overcome the barriers that will slow or prevent a just energy transition.
This report “covers a broad set of societal objectives and technological sectors and includes over 80 recommendations targeting private and public sector engagement,” the summary continues. Pacala added:
Lower-cost energy technologies, legislative support, and the national focus on equity and justice, it says, have created an opportunity for the U.S. to meet urgent needs created by the climate crisis. These developments, in addition to federal regulations and executive orders, state and local policies, and private sector activities, put the United States in a position to take the lead in the global fight against climate change.
So, given this “global fight,” we appear to have a “war” on our hands, but will it be a war against a looming, genuine climate catastrophe or, ultimately, a war against truth, targeting the growing body of naysayers who don’t swallow every line they’re fed by the powers-that-shouldn’t-be?
Notably, there are other ideas on what crude oil is and where it comes from, with some theories positing that it eventually regenerates itself and therefore may also be “sustainable.” But today’s managerial class in big media, big government, and elsewhere despises dissent.
The politicians and their financial masters don’t want Americans to engage in a real exchange of ideas because, otherwise, they might learn it’s possible that:
A vast biomass of micro-organisms and extremophiles beneath Earth’s surface estimated to be several times the size of the surface biomass, [derive] their chemical energy for life from methane and oxygen pulled from sulfates and ferrous oxides. The source of methane [is] way too deep to come from fossils. …
These recent findings and other evidence were foretold by late scientist and researcher from Cornell Thomas Gold who authored The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels.
That’s according to a provocative post at “Earth Science Stack Exchange,” the type of perspective that would never be aired or discussed in major mass media or governmental circles. Real science would debate a wide range of ideas—but that tradition has been eliminated.
“Doom and gloom” sells and gets the research dollars, comprising a rich soil for confirmation bias and career advancement. The fix is in unless we raise some hell.
Mark Anderson is a roving writer for AFP. He invites your thoughtful comments and story ideas at [email protected]. Mark’s radio show “Stop the Presses!” runs at www.republicbroadcasting.org, Wednesdays from 3 to 4 p.m. EDT.