After studying 1,500 environmental programs in 41 countries on six continents from 1998 to 2022, a research team from Science on August 22 reported finding no reduction in carbon emissions in 96% of the programs. The study was able to identify about 4% that they said worked in reducing emissions, but they tended to reduce energy consumption by increasing the cost of the fuel, by taxes or other mechanisms. Consistently Science magazine, the publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found that the worst performance came from the “renewable energy” projects, which some call “green pork barrel” projects.
A March 2018 report in Nature by Richard York of the University of Oregon found that simply producing a unit of “green” energy did not replace a unit of “fossil” energy and that developing a new energy source merely increased energy usage. Another study published by Energy Research & Social Science in May 2019 by Richard York and Shannon Elizabeth Bell insists that there is no energy “transition” taking place, and to eliminate fossil fuel use requires a different path from the “renewable energy” path.
None of these findings is new, and even the Obama/Biden White House issued similar findings in a 2013 report by the National Research Council. The Obama/Biden report stated that green subsidies were a “poor tool for reducing greenhouse gases and achieving climate-change objectives.” Regardless, Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act would dedicate nearly $1 trillion in tax dollars, tax credits, consumer incentives, loan guarantees, green subsidies, etc.—in opposition to their own simple logic, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Of course, were the actual goal to reduce the burning of fossil energy, there would be massive construction of 4th-generation nuclear power plants. Of note, none of the above-mentioned reports considers the depopulation that would be inflicted on the world or challenges the assumptions and hysteria of the climate-change lobby.
