Climate Change is in Turbo Mode.

[Debrah N.]

Big oil is certainly invested in it financially and have known the destruction it would cause for years.

And in Canada, 'big oil' has been shown to lie consistently about the level of their emissions. Instead of actually measuring their emissions at point of entry into the atmosphere, they only estimate their emissions level! And both the Alberta and the Saskatchewan government think that's just fine! Then when actual researchers tested properly, it was discovered that in Alberta, their ESTIMATE, WAS 60% SHORT and in Saskatchewan, it was 40% short of the actual amount. And that is why we shouldn't trust a word that comes from them or their supporters like Jordan Peterson. Peterson can't be trusted on the issue because he's a born and bred, old school oil-sucking Albertan AND he thinks he knows absolutely everything including stuff that he hasn't even studied.

As for Bjorn Lomburg, he agrees that global warming is real and man-made and will have a serious impact but his bone of contention is that the world should be looking at and spending money on adapting to the changes and not bother so much with trying to cut our emissions. My personal opinion is that we should be doing both, particularly as it's pretty obvious that we're gonna loose the race since we've apparently hit the 1.5 degree point in 2024. So obviously we're going to need to adapt, but we can't let our emissions head straight up as they are currently doing.

 

[Tazx]

And in Canada, 'big oil' has been shown to lie consistently about the level of their emissions. Instead of actually measuring their emissions at point of entry into the atmosphere, they only estimate their emissions level! And both the Alberta and the Saskatchewan government think that's just fine! Then when actual researchers tested properly, it was discovered that in Alberta, their ESTIMATE, WAS 60% SHORT and in Saskatchewan, it was 40% short of the actual amount. And that is why we shouldn't trust a word that comes from them or their supporters like Jordan Peterson. Peterson can't be trusted on the issue because he's a born and bred, old school oil-sucking Albertan AND he thinks he knows absolutely everything including stuff that he hasn't even studied.

As for Bjorn Lomburg, he agrees that global warming is real and man-made and will have a serious impact but his bone of contention is that the world should be looking at and spending money on adapting to the changes and not bother so much with trying to cut our emissions. My personal opinion is that we should be doing both, particularly as it's pretty obvious that we're gonna loose the race since we've apparently hit the 1.5 degree point in 2024. So obviously we're going to need to adapt, but we can't let our emissions head straight up as they are currently doing.

Climate change is not what we are told. But instead of arguing this or that, how about we put the trillions of dollars into what matters. Too many people in the world living in poverty. Too much homelessness, too much inflation, too many wars or conflicts, too much corruption. Too much money spent on things that are not important.
For those in Canada, there was a economist that said 1 year budget of our military could end homelessness in Canada. So about 20 billion dollars. Instead we ow will spend more on military, and we send money to Ukraine and Africa all the time, instead of taking care of our own people. It's all fine to help others, but where do we draw the line between helping our own versus helping others. If our country is falling apart-which it is-how on earth can anyone rationalize sending our resources and tax dollars to others?
As for the military, yes I served for a long time. I risked my life for others and honestly if I could back 30 years, would do it again. But...what I saw during many many experiences in various places, is that military conflict is never, and has never been the answer to anything. It is fraught with lies and fraud. And serving people put in the line of fire over something that can be solved with diplomacy.
Back to climate change...see the video that was posted a while back. I think on here somewhere, but could be wrong. I saw it, and have a copy, can post it later. It explains why we will never get off oil. Ever. Even if we wanted to and started today, it wont happen for at least 75 to a hundred years. No country has anything even close to an electrical supply to change our ways. 35 years just to run the power lines. 50 to build enough dams or nuclear power plants to power the need required.
Then the clear safety issues of scooters, ev's and other electronic products.
We are never ever going to get off oil in the next 100 years. Not even close.
As for CO2 is the the life molecule. Everything dies without it. We die without it. It represents 0.04 of our gas in our atmosphere. It is also at the lowest point in all human history.
Canada for 1 absorbs 15 times out pollution/emissions due to our vast forests. many countries in the world are either in a negative or neutral due to their forestry. Eg; Poland, Germany Russia, etc.

Then we have the question what to do with the 83 percent of emission creators. China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, etc. They produce up to 83 percent of all emissions. They are not in on this 'green initiative', so we can all be good little citizens and do our part, -if we believe in this- but it won't make a dam bit of difference without the other 83 percent.

So, what can we do to stop the other 83 percent. Nothing. Since everything in the world is made in Asia in some form or another, and they are not caring about this at all, the only way is to stop importing stuff from them. Well, that would destroy the entire western world and by that, destroy them as well. They lose 83 percent of exports, so they collapse. The west (North America) dont get (about 70 percent of all goods are imported to NA) get about 70 percent of what we consume.

And again watch the clip from Landman series where he explains the stats about oil. I will try to add it, but its easily found on youtube.

 

[Tazx]

Governments worldwide have spent over $5 trillion in the past two decades to subsidize wind, solar, and other so-called renewables.


However, even with that astronomical financial support, the world still depends on hydrocarbons for 84% of its energy needs—down only 2% since governments started binge spending on renewables 20 years ago.
So 5 trillion dollars for 2 percent! Seems like a great investment. All the money in the world won't even make a dent in achieving our goal of making a dent in this whole green movement.
What is really going on here?
It’s essentially the triumph of pseudoscience and aberrant psychology over physics and critical thinking.

The Greens, who have pushed all this through, say they love the Earth and want to “save” it. But in fact, they mostly just hate people. It’s not only a question of forcing the adoption of uneconomic power sources. Many of the same people have said they’re interested in reducing the Earth’s population by 50 to 90%. The idea is not to increase people’s standard of living but simply to reduce their consumption and perhaps their numbers.

It’s a consequence of Leftists having captured the world’s school systems over the last several generations. Professors, who are in a position of authority, indoctrinate the kids. And the kids talk to each other within the academic bubble and feel that what they’ve been told is fact, as opposed to opinion. Their feelings are reinforced by what they hear from the media and the government.

Wind and solar are fine for selected uses, special situations, and isolated environments. But they make no sense as a form of mass power generation for an industrial society. Not only are they extremely costly to build and run, but the power that they produce is intermittent and unreliable. They require huge and uneconomic investment in battery technologies or the maintenance of conventional hydrocarbon power plants for when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. Which is most of the time…
Also, the co2 emissions to build and transport these wind and solar solutions outweigh their co2 savings. No wind turbine or solar panel farm will ever recoup the co2 emissions that was used to make it-in its lifetime. So a wind turbine will need to be replaced with a new one long before it has saved the emissions it was supposed to save. Rendering it a useless endeavor.

Even with enormous government support, electric vehicles (EVs) can barely compete with gasoline vehicles.
According to J.D. Power, a consumer research firm, the average EV still costs at least 21% more than the average gasoline vehicle, and uses the exact same or more resources to build it. (if you include getting the battery components-lithium, far exceeds the footprint of a gasoline vehicle).
Can EVs compete with gasoline vehicles on a level playing field? No. Never. Not even close.
First, let me say that the government shouldn’t subsidize anything. They create distortions in the market, resulting in misallocations of capital. The result is that a few politically protected types benefit while the overall wealth of the society declines.
For selected uses, (very selected) such as within cities, where EVs can be charged easily, they certainly could have a place in the automotive ecosystem. And over time, if EV batteries improve, giving them lower costs, better performance, lower weight, and longer range, and lower their emissions to produce, they may compete with gasoline powered vehicles.
But internal combustion engines are constantly becoming more efficient as well. Deciding the most economic and generally satisfactory technology should be up to the producers and the users, not bureaucrats. It’s a matter for physics, not politics, to determine.

Subsidizing uneconomic vehicles just wastes capital, lowers the general standard of living, and slows progress. There are serious problems that EV advocates don’t want to consider, such as the amount of extra electrical power needed to run these vehicles. A level that no nation will ever achieve. Any country would need to create on average 75 percent more electricity than current levels to even get close to requirements. Most countries in the world have trouble producing the required needs already. Brownouts are common throughout the world, especially in large metros. But to increase it, would require more generating plants, almost all coal or gas fired. And a vastly improved grid to distribute that power effectively. Which no nation has or could do within at minimum 35 years.

The premature and forced adoption of EVs will likely result in bankruptcies throughout the automotive business. Which will slow progress, wipe out many investors, and unemploy many workers. Here’s a radical thought: The government should have nothing—zero—to do with cars.

We’ve had two tremendous mass hysterias in the last decade.
One revolves around health, with a novel disease and the creation of a vaccine said to fight it. Second is the climate hysteria, which promises to be even more disruptive.

Generations of students have been indoctrinated to believe that Mother Earth is being ravaged by its evil human population. In reality, Earth is going to be just fine. The real damage is being done by the kind of people who want to control other people. The answer to what should be done is: Nothing. The busybodies should mind their own business.

The Greens, however, love to get involved in big causes where they have lots of slogans and memes but very little scientific or technical knowledge. However, “getting involved” generates emotions which give meaning to their generally unproductive lives. Lacking traditional religion, they crave something bigger than themselves. It wasn’t so long ago that saving the whales was the cause du jour. Even though, with some minor exceptions, whales haven’t been hunted for over a century. Or saving the polar bears, even their population has been increasing for decades.

If it’s not one thing, it’s something else. It’s always something to get the population into a state of fear and hysteria. The elite who control society use them to keep the plebs in line.

Carbon credits and carbon accounting are headed for the dustbin of history. They make no sense. They really are a scam.

Carbon, the basis of all life on the planet, is being treated like the deadliest element in the periodic table. Greens think CO2? is more toxic than mustard gas or Zyklon-B. The war against CO2? is idiotic. It’s plant food. Plants breathe it and can’t live without it. If you want more green plants, you need more CO2?

Plants can’t grow with less than 130 parts per million of CO?. And even now, it’s only about 400 or so. In the past, Earth had several times more CO2 in the atmosphere, and all forms of life prospered. Scientists are well aware of this fact but dare not discuss it for fear of losing their positions or funding. It’s as dangerous as denying the existence of witches during the hysterias of the Middle Ages. A form of science known as “The Science” has become almost as corrupt as politics.

The political hysterics have control of the information pipeline. It may take a while for this to turn around. You can’t fight reality forever, however. I’ll guess that in a decade or two, carbon credits and carbon accounting will be seen as an embarrassment, as ridiculous and counterproductive as the use of massive bloodletting to cure whatever ails you.

From a speculator’s point of view, the good news is that we should make a lot of money staying long hydrocarbons—oil, natural gas, and coal. And double long on uranium and nuclear power. Reality always wins out. They’re very cheap since the public is still caught up in Green hysterics and Woke pseudoscience.

 

[papa tiger]

All right ya have 100 rounds for your firearm. Go out, knock off 100. Problems solved.
300,000,000 firearms X 100 = 30,000,000,000. Sure the Asians have an advantage but
they too screwed.

Look at who gets on those 150,000 flights a day, who drives those 500,000,000 autos every day?
Cruises endlessly, ships all the stuff ? Case solved. The problem is?

 

[Tazx]

All right ya have 100 rounds for your firearm. Go out, knock off 100. Problems solved.
300,000,000 firearms X 100 = 30,000,000,000. Sure the Asians have an advantage but
they too screwed.

Look at who gets on those 150,000 flights a day, who drives those 500,000,000 autos every day?
Cruises endlessly, ships all the stuff ? Case solved. The problem is?

Ok, so the 0.04 percent is the problem? Thats the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. And humans are responsible for a fraction of that.
You can stop all the cruise ships, cars and planes, we will still not make a dent in that 0.04 percent.

I got questions for yall....
So during covid, planes stopped flying for months on end, car travel was down 60 percent, train travel was down about 50 percent here in EU, but stopped in Canada altogether. Factories shut down, unnecessary construction shut down and so on. Yet where in the news was the massive change in atmospheric co2? Cause I hear stupid reporters say on tv the other day 'the people comng to nfl games and all their cars drove up pollution levels and carbon levels in baltimore', they should be forced to use mass transit. Ok, I can get on board with that. MAYBE the carbon levels and polluton did rise for the traffic created for that one game. Well then what happened during the lockdowns?
Was wasn't that all over the news?

Then just reading some articles on science direct and science today, and even some other publications. A few guys were asking why do all climate disasters happen in densely populated areas only. According to their research 99 percent occurred in or around urban areas. They found it very interesting that hurricanes never hit low density areas of the coast, rain and floods never hit the small towns, only large urban centers. They started to look at the last 25 years and saw an alarming trend.

They also noticed that the temperature differences that the news never talks about. For instance they were in Yellowstone when several large us cities broke heat records, yet Yellowstone was at the same avg as the last 50 years. Another team working on Mt Ranier noticed rainfall levels and temps were the same as historical avgs??

Funny that reporters only focus on major cities and all the temp records broken. Of course they are. A million people in glass building filled cities, 100k cars and trucks driving around or more, a large concentration of people, of course the temp is huge! But take a temp reading just outside the center, and then outside the city and see the numbers. Vastly different.

I mentioned before, my parents used to go to their farm (nonworking anymore) in the host summer. The had a old summer kitchen from the property they used to cook in during the hot summers. I'm sure many are familiar with that. In Winnipeg MB they temp can get high 30's with terrible humidity and break 40's all the time. They used to spent the warms spells at the farm where the temp on the summer kitchen window was low 30's.

I think thats a very misleading way to portray cc. Also, the oldest known ocean markers in the world-Key West Fl, Osaka Jn, Victoria bc, Venice It, all have never changed. There is a constant ebb and flow or low times and high times. No records broken. But didn't Al Gore say that low lying coastal areas and islands would be under water in 20 years?

There is a lot of deceit in CC, and we need to sort the truth from propaganda.

 

[Paco Dennis]

Ok, so the 0.04 percent is the problem? Thats the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. And humans are responsible for a fraction of that.
You can stop all the cruise ships, cars and planes, we will still not make a dent in that 0.04 percent.

I got questions for yall....
So during covid, planes stopped flying for months on end, car travel was down 60 percent, train travel was down about 50 percent here in EU, but stopped in Canada altogether. Factories shut down, unnecessary construction shut down and so on. Yet where in the news was the massive change in atmospheric co2? Cause I hear stupid reporters say on tv the other day 'the people comng to nfl games and all their cars drove up pollution levels and carbon levels in baltimore', they should be forced to use mass transit. Ok, I can get on board with that. MAYBE the carbon levels and polluton did rise for the traffic created for that one game. Well then what happened during the lockdowns?
Was wasn't that all over the news?

Then just reading some articles on science direct and science today, and even some other publications. A few guys were asking why do all climate disasters happen in densely populated areas only. According to their research 99 percent occurred in or around urban areas. They found it very interesting that hurricanes never hit low density areas of the coast, rain and floods never hit the small towns, only large urban centers. They started to look at the last 25 years and saw an alarming trend.

They also noticed that the temperature differences that the news never talks about. For instance they were in Yellowstone when several large us cities broke heat records, yet Yellowstone was at the same avg as the last 50 years. Another team working on Mt Ranier noticed rainfall levels and temps were the same as historical avgs??

Funny that reporters only focus on major cities and all the temp records broken. Of course they are. A million people in glass building filled cities, 100k cars and trucks driving around or more, a large concentration of people, of course the temp is huge! But take a temp reading just outside the center, and then outside the city and see the numbers. Vastly different.

I mentioned before, my parents used to go to their farm (nonworking anymore) in the host summer. The had a old summer kitchen from the property they used to cook in during the hot summers. I'm sure many are familiar with that. In Winnipeg MB they temp can get high 30's with terrible humidity and break 40's all the time. They used to spent the warms spells at the farm where the temp on the summer kitchen window was low 30's.

I think thats a very misleading way to portray cc. Also, the oldest known ocean markers in the world-Key West Fl, Osaka Jn, Victoria bc, Venice It, all have never changed. There is a constant ebb and flow or low times and high times. No records broken. But didn't Al Gore say that low lying coastal areas and islands would be under water in 20 years?

There is a lot of deceit in CC, and we need to sort the truth from propaganda.

In every high school this post would get a D- because of the constant misrepresentation of the data. Waste basket bound.

 

[Tazx]

In every high school this post would get a D- because of the constant misrepresentation of the data. Waste basket bound.

Well good thing I am not in high school.

But explain to me how CC affects a city such as Winnipeg, but not 20 mins away. How it affects Calgary but not 90 miles away. Why is the temp in Calgary 36 and in Red Deer 29? Is climate change selective?
When in Poland the temp in Warsaw was 32 or so. It rarely gets into the 30's according to people. But Pruskow was 24. Its a suburb. Yes people will say waves of heat, valleys, rivers, etc can affect it. Absolutely correct. I do not disagree. But why do they take each and every temp reading in the center of major cities? Why not lets say for stability, 10 min outside each major city>Like why not?

 

[Tazx]

The Smithsonian states;

Why the City Is (Usually) Hotter than the Countryside

There’s a good reason why city dwellers flee to the countryside to cool off in the heat of summer: Rural areas are usually not as hot. Because of the “urban heat island” effect, cities of a million or more people can be 1–3°C (1.8–5.4°F) warmer on average—and as much as 12°C (22°F) warmer in the evening—than the surrounding area, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

There are plenty of reasons why cities are hotter. All those people, their buildings and the machinery inside create heat. Air conditioning, for example, can raise temperatures by more than 1°C, Arizona State University researchers reported last month. Buildings and other structures can store more heat during the day than plants; at night, they emit some of that heat, contributing to warmer temperatures when it’s dark out. Cities might also have less reflectiveness, which would let them soak up more of the Sun’s heat.

Other publications that monitor city heat;

Why are cities so much hotter than the surrounding areas? - CityMonitor

So, the question again, why do they say 'record heat' in the center of an urban heat island. Of course its record heat! What else would it be. If they said the temps outside the city center no one would care. As they are all the same and the historical norm.

 

[Tazx]

Hawaii's Mt Kilauea is erupting. Volcanologist estimate it will blow for 3-4 days min. Maybe longer. During this time it will emit a minimum of 8,500 metric tons of CO2 per day. Equivalent to emissions of approximately 5,821,875 cars daily.

How come no one told this volcano that we already have too much co2 in the air! Lol.
How do you charge a volcano a carbon tax?

Dam, my smoothie is melting.

 

[papa tiger]

Breath in, breath out, 8 billion times every couple of seconds. Saw down them trees.
Ya can't have a tree close to the houses, saw them trees. Raise corn, saw down them
trees. Raise beans, saw down them trees. Now China quit setting western fires here.

Build a square mile of multi family condos on top of that smoky mountain, saw down
them trees and back hoe / buldoze it all level.

Trees have nothing to do wid it. Dump more plastic. Saw down more stuff.
It's dang shifting of Continents that change the weather. Saw down lots more stuff.

Let them Vol caners blow, they been blowing for Billions of years. Lifes a struggle.
For those choked in China I say so what ya got ta do. Sure, attack Tiawan. Fresh Airs
better over there in them islands anyhoo.

 

[Tazx]

In 2024, European energy giants like BP, Shell and Equinor scaled back investments in renewable energy projects, refocusing on oil and gas due to profitability and market demands.

High oil and gas prices, driven by geopolitical disruptions like the Ukraine war, made fossil fuels more profitable, while renewables faced financial challenges like inflation and supply chain issues.

The article argues that fossil fuels are not the primary driver of climate change, emphasizing the complexity of climate systems and the benefits of affordable, reliable energy for global prosperity.
The article advocates for a pragmatic approach that integrates fossil fuels with environmental stewardship, highlighting technologies like carbon capture as evidence of the industry’s commitment to sustainability.

In a world increasingly dominated by climate alarmism and calls for a rapid transition to renewable energy, the recent strategic pivot by major oil and gas companies serves as a stark reminder of the indispensable role fossil fuels play in modern society. Contrary to the narrative that oil, gas and coal are driving catastrophic global warming, the evidence suggests that these energy sources remain not only economically vital but also environmentally sustainable when managed responsibly.

In 2024, European energy giants like BP, Shell and Equinor significantly scaled back their investments in wind and solar projects, refocusing on their core competencies in oil and gas. This shift, driven by investor demand and geopolitical realities, underscores the limitations of renewable energy and reaffirms the necessity of fossil fuels in meeting global energy needs.

The decision by these companies to prioritize oil and gas over renewables is not a rejection of environmental stewardship but a pragmatic response to market forces. As Rohan Bowater, an analyst at Accela Research, noted, geopolitical disruptions like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have created a high-price environment for oil and gas, making these investments more profitable than ever. Meanwhile, renewable energy projects have struggled with inflation, supply chain bottlenecks and lower returns, leading to significant financial losses for companies that ventured too far from their expertise.

For example, BP, once a champion of renewable energy, announced it would spin off most of its offshore wind projects into a joint venture, while Shell exited power markets in Europe and China. These moves reflect a broader trend: Investors are rewarding companies that focus on their core strengths rather than chasing the elusive promise of renewables.

The myth of fossil fuel-driven climate change
Despite the relentless rhetoric linking fossil fuels to global warming, the scientific evidence does not support the claim that these energy sources are the primary driver of climate change. Climate is a complex system influenced by a multitude of factors, including natural variability, solar activity and oceanic cycles. The notion that human emissions of carbon dioxide are solely responsible for rising global temperatures is an oversimplification that ignores the broader context of Earth’s climate history.

Moreover, the benefits of fossil fuels – affordable, reliable energy that powers economies and lifts billions out of poverty – far outweigh the speculative risks associated with climate change. As Norway’s Equinor aptly stated, “affordable, reliable energy and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive.”

A balanced energy future
The retreat from renewables by major energy companies is not a rejection of innovation but a recognition of the need for a balanced energy strategy. Fossil fuels remain the backbone of the global economy, and their responsible use is compatible with environmental goals. Technologies like carbon capture and methane leak prevention demonstrate that the industry is committed to reducing emissions without sacrificing energy security.

As the world navigates the complexities of energy policy, it is essential to reject the false dichotomy between fossil fuels and environmental sustainability. The recent actions of BP, Shell and Equinor serve as a powerful reminder that oil, gas and coal are not the villains of climate change but the foundation of modern prosperity.

In the face of climate alarmism, the energy industry’s return to its core strengths is a victory for common sense, economic growth and global stability. Fossil fuels are here to stay—and that’s a good thing.

 

[CooCooforCoCoPuffs]

Excellent posts @Tazx
"Beautiful".
Hang in there, good to read logic and common sense.

 

[CooCooforCoCoPuffs]

Hawaii's Mt Kilauea is erupting. Volcanologist estimate it will blow for 3-4 days min. Maybe longer. During this time it will emit a minimum of 8,500 metric tons of CO2 per day. Equivalent to emissions of approximately 5,821,875 cars daily.

How come no one told this volcano that we already have too much co2 in the air! Lol.
How do you charge a volcano a carbon tax?

Dam, my smoothie is melting.

They probably have millions going into research to stop volcanos from blowing, too.
I just want space exploration to be funded more; was about 14 when I figured that out.

 

[CooCooforCoCoPuffs]

A final world economic melt down will be just as bad or worse than any cc could possibly be.

 

[CooCooforCoCoPuffs]

In every high school this post would get a D- because of the constant misrepresentation of the data. Waste basket bound.

Hmmm...
A logical argument gets a "D" yet a utopian paper gets an "A".
Indicates how public schools and teachers are sucked in to reactionary inducing media propaganda.

 

[George1959]

Excellent posts @Tazx
"Beautiful".
Hang in there, good to read logic and common sense.

I second this. And I don't care the least if someone calls me a "climate change denier". Of cause the climate changes, as it ever did. But not because of man. And more CO2 is more plants and a greener earth. As all of us know that they need it. Europe had a rise in population during the middle ages, as the average annual temperature was some degrees higher than now. And the decline of population and economy didn't happen because of the Great Plague alone but because of lower temperatures.
So stop this ridiculous fear mongering.

 

[Paco Dennis]

In 2024, European energy giants like BP, Shell and Equinor scaled back investments in renewable energy projects, refocusing on oil and gas due to profitability and market demands.

High oil and gas prices, driven by geopolitical disruptions like the Ukraine war, made fossil fuels more profitable, while renewables faced financial challenges like inflation and supply chain issues.

The article argues that fossil fuels are not the primary driver of climate change, emphasizing the complexity of climate systems and the benefits of affordable, reliable energy for global prosperity.
The article advocates for a pragmatic approach that integrates fossil fuels with environmental stewardship, highlighting technologies like carbon capture as evidence of the industry’s commitment to sustainability.

In a world increasingly dominated by climate alarmism and calls for a rapid transition to renewable energy, the recent strategic pivot by major oil and gas companies serves as a stark reminder of the indispensable role fossil fuels play in modern society. Contrary to the narrative that oil, gas and coal are driving catastrophic global warming, the evidence suggests that these energy sources remain not only economically vital but also environmentally sustainable when managed responsibly.

In 2024, European energy giants like BP, Shell and Equinor significantly scaled back their investments in wind and solar projects, refocusing on their core competencies in oil and gas. This shift, driven by investor demand and geopolitical realities, underscores the limitations of renewable energy and reaffirms the necessity of fossil fuels in meeting global energy needs.

The decision by these companies to prioritize oil and gas over renewables is not a rejection of environmental stewardship but a pragmatic response to market forces. As Rohan Bowater, an analyst at Accela Research, noted, geopolitical disruptions like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have created a high-price environment for oil and gas, making these investments more profitable than ever. Meanwhile, renewable energy projects have struggled with inflation, supply chain bottlenecks and lower returns, leading to significant financial losses for companies that ventured too far from their expertise.

For example, BP, once a champion of renewable energy, announced it would spin off most of its offshore wind projects into a joint venture, while Shell exited power markets in Europe and China. These moves reflect a broader trend: Investors are rewarding companies that focus on their core strengths rather than chasing the elusive promise of renewables.

The myth of fossil fuel-driven climate change
Despite the relentless rhetoric linking fossil fuels to global warming, the scientific evidence does not support the claim that these energy sources are the primary driver of climate change. Climate is a complex system influenced by a multitude of factors, including natural variability, solar activity and oceanic cycles. The notion that human emissions of carbon dioxide are solely responsible for rising global temperatures is an oversimplification that ignores the broader context of Earth’s climate history.

Moreover, the benefits of fossil fuels – affordable, reliable energy that powers economies and lifts billions out of poverty – far outweigh the speculative risks associated with climate change. As Norway’s Equinor aptly stated, “affordable, reliable energy and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive.”

A balanced energy future
The retreat from renewables by major energy companies is not a rejection of innovation but a recognition of the need for a balanced energy strategy. Fossil fuels remain the backbone of the global economy, and their responsible use is compatible with environmental goals. Technologies like carbon capture and methane leak prevention demonstrate that the industry is committed to reducing emissions without sacrificing energy security.

As the world navigates the complexities of energy policy, it is essential to reject the false dichotomy between fossil fuels and environmental sustainability. The recent actions of BP, Shell and Equinor serve as a powerful reminder that oil, gas and coal are not the villains of climate change but the foundation of modern prosperity.

In the face of climate alarmism, the energy industry’s return to its core strengths is a victory for common sense, economic growth and global stability. Fossil fuels are here to stay—and that’s a good thing.

The information provided in the query does not accurately reflect the content of the search results. The search results do not support the claims made about fossil fuels, climate change, or the energy industry's stance on renewable energy. Instead, the search results indicate:European energy companies have indeed scaled back some renewable energy investments in 2024, focusing more on oil and gas production
4
8
. This shift was driven by factors such as delayed green policies, economic challenges, and the need for near-term profits
4
8
.However, renewable energy still plays a significant role in the EU's power generation. In the first half of 2024, 50% of public electricity generation in the EU came from renewables for the first time
1
. In Germany, renewables covered 58% of gross electricity consumption in the same period
1
.The search results do not support the claim that fossil fuels are not a primary driver of climate change. Instead, they highlight efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the oil and gas industry through technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS)
3
7
.The European Investment Bank continues to support clean energy projects, with plans to provide €45 billion in additional support for the REPowerEU plan over five years
9
.The search results do not present arguments against climate change or in favor of fossil fuels as suggested in the query. Instead, they focus on reporting factual information about energy market trends, renewable energy growth, and efforts to reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector.

 

[papa tiger]

January 2025 is forecasted to be one of the coldest in modern history.
Wait for it I think. Winter last year was pretty much over by Mid January.

Go figure. NG went up in price. Electric bill went up. Water bill went up.
Gasoline is reasonable. I see a Tesla about ever trip out.

Yesterday an EV Toyota turned on in the Waldo World parking lot, sounds like a broken
washing machine. Most likely Heater bad in it.

The next 2 weeks are predicted to be mighty cold out there! NG Electric plants a powering
up again. Can see the white clouds arising up in the air above them from the place.

Snow Falls supposed to start up in a couple of days. around 24 hrs. of snow fall, .1"
or more and hour they say.

 

[Tazx's_better_half]

The majority of people who deny these facts are the boomers who caused this to happen.

There's an old Indian saying that- We are nieve to believe that we can save Mother Earth as she could shake us off like a bad case of fleas

 

[Tazx]

The information provided in the query does not accurately reflect the content of the search results. The search results do not support the claims made about fossil fuels, climate change, or the energy industry's stance on renewable energy. Instead, the search results indicate:European energy companies have indeed scaled back some renewable energy investments in 2024, focusing more on oil and gas production
4
8
. This shift was driven by factors such as delayed green policies, economic challenges, and the need for near-term profits
4
8
.However, renewable energy still plays a significant role in the EU's power generation. In the first half of 2024, 50% of public electricity generation in the EU came from renewables for the first time
1
. In Germany, renewables covered 58% of gross electricity consumption in the same period
1
.The search results do not support the claim that fossil fuels are not a primary driver of climate change. Instead, they highlight efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the oil and gas industry through technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS)
3
7
.The European Investment Bank continues to support clean energy projects, with plans to provide €45 billion in additional support for the REPowerEU plan over five years
9
.The search results do not present arguments against climate change or in favor of fossil fuels as suggested in the query. Instead, they focus on reporting factual information about energy market trends, renewable energy growth, and efforts to reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector.

Good attempt Paco. Give it up. There is no way Eu energy is 50 percent renewable. Germany is 51.6 percent according to their own govt. Spain ranked second and produced 50 percent less than Germany. So they would be about 25-26 percent total. All other countries are even lower.



Paco keep living in your delusional world. Ev's and renewable energy are a long way from being the dominant force you think they are. Ev's are on the wane, and maybe in 75 years we can be renewable. But for now, not so much.

 

[Pepper]

They can't comprehend them - the lack of intelligence on the forum is bewildering...so much delusion and denial.

Then why don't you leave, but when you do, please leave the door open for nicer people than you. People who don't insult our forum and lack your superiority delusions.

 

[Pepper]

Smart people don't spell naive as 'nieve'. (#119) Forgot, resigned from Grammar/Spelling police.

 

[CooCooforCoCoPuffs]

The information provided in the query does not accurately reflect the content of the search results. The search results do not support the claims made about fossil fuels, climate change, or the energy industry's stance on renewable energy. Instead, the search results indicate:European energy companies have indeed scaled back some renewable energy investments in 2024, focusing more on oil and gas production
4
8
. This shift was driven by factors such as delayed green policies, economic challenges, and the need for near-term profits
4
8
.However, renewable energy still plays a significant role in the EU's power generation. In the first half of 2024, 50% of public electricity generation in the EU came from renewables for the first time
1
. In Germany, renewables covered 58% of gross electricity consumption in the same period
1
.The search results do not support the claim that fossil fuels are not a primary driver of climate change. Instead, they highlight efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the oil and gas industry through technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS)
3
7
.The European Investment Bank continues to support clean energy projects, with plans to provide €45 billion in additional support for the REPowerEU plan over five years
9
.The search results do not present arguments against climate change or in favor of fossil fuels as suggested in the query. Instead, they focus on reporting factual information about energy market trends, renewable energy growth, and efforts to reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector.

And we all know how Germany is doing these days....

 

[CooCooforCoCoPuffs]

Then why don't you leave, but when you do, please leave the door open for nicer people than you. People who don't insult our forum and lack your superiority delusions.

Pot calling that kettle black....LOL

 

[CooCooforCoCoPuffs]

There is no way Eu energy is 50 percent renewable....So they would be about 25-26 percent total. All other countries are even lower.
View attachment 393167
...Ev's are on the wane, and maybe in 75 years we can be renewable. But for now, not so much.

As long as something MUST be subsidized, doesn't make a profit it won't BE sustainable. (No pun intended....)
Money sustains, not wishes, dreams, and fantasies.