“Previous energy transitions adopted energy sources of greater density and efficiency than those they replaced. Those advantages became a natural incentive for their adoption. In the current ‘transition’, the process is reversed unless we are prepared to countenance the mass use of nuclear technology.” – Nick Cater, below

The political “energy transition” has predictably violated comparative energy physics and thus consumer preferences–and best industry practices. A re-look at the failing, impossible “energy transition” was penned by Nick Cater, senior fellow at Menzies Research Centre in Australia. [1] His analysis deserves wide attention, as does his other work at the energy-centric Reality Bites.

As the First Fleet vessels, propelled by wind and muscle, made their way to Australia, the last energy transition was making headway in Europe and the United States.…

“Apologies are in order from Bloomberg Green. In terms of social justice, why hurt the average person as consumer, ratepayer, and taxpayer?”

“Trump’s Green-Bashing and Europe’s Right Put Climate Goals at Risk,” write Laura Millan, Zahra Hirji, Olivia Rudgard, and Jonathan Gilbert (maybe it takes four writers to tip-toe around the climate vs. social justice issue).

The Bloomberg Green authors call it “the campaign against climate.” Realists would call it a long overdue populist campaign for energy justice and against alarmism and energy rationing. And expect a lot more such protest in the future as Net Zero fails–and an “energy transition” back to the real thing (dense, stock, affordable, plentiful, reliable energies) occurs.

Here is the Bloomberg Green Daily story:

Politicians are vowing to roll back green policies and downplaying climate change ahead of key elections on both sides of the Atlantic, casting doubt on whether countries can maintain momentum in the transition away from fossil fuels.…

“It is shocking that legislators would contemplate advancing policy that would increase taxes, drive up prices for American families, harm workers and those on fixed incomes, and punish energy use. Yet this is precisely what a carbon tariff does.” (Free Market Letter, below)

Government intervention expands and expands from its own shortcomings. And in the service of “global climate change,” where deep-ecology alarmism prevails and economics is demoted, regulation is open-ended and increasingly strident.

Open international trade has been the gold standard for hundreds of years in theory and in practice. Adam Smith noted how the international division of labor produces the most goods and services for the greatest number, increasing the Wealth of Nations. His logic remains today.

Pricing carbon dioxide (CO2) is the weapon of the anti-industrial, anti-energy “Progressives.”…

“So, it seems the [COP 28] agreement establishes that we can ‘abate’ fossil fuel plant emissions to produce more fossil fuels. Does anything capture the Orwellian nature of this agreement better?”

“After eight years, not one of the top 10 greenhouse gas emitting countries has adopted ‘policies and action’ capable of meeting the Paris climate targets.” (Joe Romm, 12-20-2024)

Yes, Joe. The international crusade against carbon dioxide (CO2)–really affordable, reliable, storable, convenient energies–has been a failure. The futile crusade is now in its 36th year with 28 annual COP meetings come-and-gone. Fossil fuels are presently in a tripartite boom with no end in sight.

This reality is an open secret that the Climate PR Complex does not want people to know. Meanwhile, every day of fossil fuel dominance makes a reversal of atmospheric CO2 less and less feasible.…