Anything but the truth

Disinformation, propaganda, denial, and false narratives. These are the most popular names that the corporate media has used to undermine the hard facts about the energy transition. The facts keep fighting back, however, and undermining them is becoming increasingly difficult. This, of course, has not stopped the transition trumpeteers. At this point, they would say anything but the truth because the climate narrative is on its last legs. And vultures such as myself would only be too happy to speed things along.

“Fostering investment in clean energy and transport systems is essential if the European Union is to achieve the 2030 climate goal of a 55 percent emissions reduction relative to 1990,” Belgian energy think tank Bruegel reported last week. Bruegel is a relatively reliable source of energy policy information, as in, relative to Ember and suchlike. Alas, it has started quoting said Ember in its reports, so there goes its reliability. It is, however, more honest than others about what the trumpeteer crowd calls “challenges”.

In that report, Bruegel admitted the transition in Europe will be very hard. In fact, it called reaching the necessary level of investment in the transition “exceptionally difficult” over the next five years. And then it went and ruined the good impression by citing “increasingly difficult trade-offs between decarbonisation, competitiveness and security, and the spreading false narratives on climate policy promoted by populist nationalist parties.”

The false narratives? The argument that the energy transition kills economies and energy security, “when it is exactly the opposite,” according to the good people at Bruegel. Here’s the full quote because it is precious.

“Even before the 2024 US presidential election, swings to populist nationalist parties in large countries including Germany and France suggested unease among voters about climate policy. These parties indeed often preach the false belief that decarbonisation is detrimental to competitiveness and security, when it is exactly the opposite. Green investment is fundamental for the EU to meet its pressing competitiveness and security objectives, even if complex trade-offs exist between these different societal objectives.”

Note that the “complex trade-offs” feature prominently in the report in a sign that there is a remnant of conscience left in the authors, which is commendable. These days, it’s the most we can hope for. Meanwhile, reality marches on oblivious of the obfuscation and straight-out fabrication efforts of the climate crusade camp. I mean, even Wood Mackenzie recently had to admit that oil exploration is flourishing and, horror of horrors, creating value for investors — while European governments crumble down and ArcelorMittal goes the way of Big Oil, reconsidering green investments.