sbynews

DelMarVa’s Premier Source for Conservative News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest

Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

We need a better way to fight climate change

Energy costs are climbing out of control. A gallon of gas costs nearly $1 more than a year ago. Americans are experiencing sticker shock this winter on home-heating costs. Though part of this is due to the world restarting after the pandemic, climate policies are increasingly driving prices up. We need a change of direction.

Fossil fuels still deliver the vast majority of energy. The European Union puts climate at the top of its political agenda, yet more than 80% of its primary energy needs are met by fossil fuels, according to the International Energy Agency. Despite endless environmental talk, solar and wind contribute only about 3% of Europe’s total energy.

Making a transition from fossil fuels to green energy is costly. Solar and wind can only deliver electricity, which accounts for less than a fifth of total energy consumption. Moreover, as Europe is learning, leaning on unreliable sources like wind leaves households vulnerable: Wind speeds were unusually low for most of 2021, causing much of Europe’s current energy pain.

When the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow, prices rise quickly and we have to revert to fossil fuels for backup. Batteries are inadequate and expensive, easily quadrupling solar electricity costs and failing to provide much power. In 2021, Europe only had battery capacity to backup less than 1 ½ minutes of its average electricity usage. By 2030, with 10 times the stock of batteries, and somewhat more usage needed, they’ll have enough for 12 minutes.

As countries move to “net-zero carbon” emissions — the target endorsed by President Joe Biden, the European Union and many others — costs will escalate much higher again.

The Bank of America has found that achieving net-zero will cost $150 trillion over 30 years, almost twice the combined annual GDP of every country on Earth. The annual cost of $5 trillion is more than all the world’s governments and households spend every year on education.

That estimate is based on the fanciful assumption that costs are spread efficiently, with big emitters China and India cutting the most. But India says it will only keep moving toward net-zero if the rest of the world pays it $1 trillion by 2030 — something that won’t happen. Most cuts will likely only happen in rich countries, which will mean a relatively trifling cut to global emissions. The rich world will get all pain for little gain.

More

7 thoughts on “We need a better way to fight climate change”

  1. Make it profitable for the likes of Musk and Bezos and they’ll figure it out.
    Taxing people to death with the funding going in cronise pockets instead of actually reducing the footprint is the typical government response that doesn’t work!

    1. Why should Americans Suffer for Nothing when the rest of world does Nothing !!!!!

      Climate change is ONLY the Democrat Propaganda way to STEAL Trillions $$$$ for Themselves !!!!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *