21 Comments

Irina, You are a gifted writer. Thank you. About ten years ago a Utility exec friend of mine was recruiting at Vanderbilt University. One of the students told him, “You know, Coal is the New Tobacco” actually, I don’t think he got any applications from that class of graduating seniors. Thanks for all you do to expose the crazies

Expand full comment

This is sad, very sad. You're very welcome!

Expand full comment

Hi Irina, I really enjoy your columns. NZ hasn’t banned smoking though.

Expand full comment

I remember reading news reports about it soon to have the first generation that has never had access to cigarettes. It's a gradual ban, I understand. I'll clarify in the post, thanks for noting it. It feels so good to be old!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-63954862

Expand full comment

Wonderful article and it shows the philosopher in you. Your use of stories to make a point does so much more to clarity the situation than a statistical laced rant. Thanks.

Expand full comment

I'm flattered you think so, thank you. Statistics can be used for manipulation, anyway, plus it's boring to just recite figures.

Expand full comment

Irina, as you have anecdotally pointed out, it's more likely that our inspired leaders will kill us via multiple potential causes than any of the individual causes will despite a statistically significant history. I'd like to encourage you to relax your skepticism relative to renewable energy development if only to consider that a different path than that promoted by genius government policy makers might actually be worth discussing. Here's an example of a community that has done the hard local work and achieved notable results. https://www.100-percent.org/wildpoldsried-germany/

Expand full comment

Oh, I am not entirely sceptic. I do believe some forms of non-hydrocarbon energy do have their good uses. Thanks for the link!

Expand full comment

That's a connection I hadn't completely made, Irina, but as usual, you're spot on!

I've watched similar campaigns against tobacco unfold here in the US, ironically right on the heels of TV adverts that used to feature Lab Coat-wearing actors telling you that "4 out of 5 Doctors Prefer Camel Cigarettes!"

I watched all of it unfold with more than a casual interest, as in the early days of anti-smoking push my father was employed by the maker of "Marlboro", and my mother grew up on a tobacco farm that had been growing that crop for over 100 years. I later di some hired-gun engineering work for "Hauni GmbH", the premier cigarette producing machinery builder in the world. To say that our family had a vested interest in "Big Tobacco" would be an understatement.

I've watched that entire industry reinvent itself several times over, often by divesting into food and beverage, or nicotine-laden gums and other delivery systems, but the stain of the anti-campaign has never left them. Philip Morris USA even renamed itself to "Altria", but it's not helped their ever-dwindling bottom line.

The greens here weren't covert in the least using the playbook you mentioned, openly tying "Big Oil & Tobacco" together whenever they saw it as possibly beneficial, and for the most part, it's worked, at least on the easily-led among us.

There's an axiom that goes something like "What the current generation will only tolerate, the next generation will embrace".

I hope my 16 YO son's generation is smart enough to see through the energy deprivation propaganda that we're now being subjected to, or they'll be the ones ending up living in a19th-century energy environment.

Expand full comment

That's one accurate axiom that we've seen in reality. That's why I'm such a big fan of the pendulum effect. It can help us not go too far with the embracing.

Expand full comment

One aspect of hydrocarbons that's missing from the conversation: slavery.

The power in coal enabled first Britain and then the US to ban slavery.

What coal ALSO enabled Britain and especially the US to do was, combined with their freedom of thought, innovate on a big scale, e.g., trains, crop harvesters, long-haul trucks.

The power in oil enabled Britain and the US to defeat Fascism, Nazism, and Communism.

(By the way, Communism is slavery with a sophisticated name.)

What oil ALSO enabled Britain and especially the US to do was, with their freedom of thought, innovate weaponry, too.

Coal and oil, along with freedom of thought, ALSO enabled people both in Britain and then the US to innovate to the point where people can talk to each other around the world with a small computer in their hands.

Oh, and, by the way, no oil? No rotation of wind turbines. No rotation? No so-called clean energy from wind turbines. And that oil needs changing regularly just as in an automobile.

Oil is involved in EVERY step of a wind turbine's existence, from mining its minerals to its disposal.

And coal? No coal? No steel. No steel? No wind turbine towers and no EVs.

Oh, and no cities as well.

Coal and oil are supporting the world's cities, societies, and POPULATION.

Expand full comment

This is an excellent point, part of the broader argument that human civilisation as it is now would not have been possible without hydrocarbons.

Expand full comment

Exactly.

Without hydrocarbons, today's human civilization will collapse AND fall back into slavery.

The reason why humanity has prospered so phenomenally over the past 250 years is because a major society, Britain - a God-trusting society, by the way - was able to ban that population-suppressing activity called slavery. They had found a much better source of energy for their society: coal.

As a consequence of banning slavery, human population began to prosper, much to the chagrin of Malthusians.

Banning slavery is also why the US - another God-trusting society, by the way - has prospered so mightily. They followed Britain's lead in using coal as a superior source of energy compared to humans.

Remember who put his trust in God: Abraham Lincoln, the man who "freed the slaves".

Then people discovered oil as a superior source of energy (compared to human labour) and the rest is history.

One point I must emphasize, however, and it is critical to this whole picture: Trust in God. It's freedom of thought that arises with trust in God. Freedom of thought is critical to innovation. Innovation has been the bedrock of prospering societies since the late 1700s (e.g., the Industrial Revolution).

Indeed, it was Malthus's lack of trust in his own God - Malthus was an Anglican theologian - that led him to write his Essay AND that has brought about the panic that is the foundation of ideologies like Climate Change and Abortion.

The moral of the story? Trust in God.

Expand full comment

Yes you can attribute FINITE Fossil Fuels (FFF’s) of Coal, Oil, and Gas to increasing productivity, technology, populations, along with improving lifestyles especially the Global North’s. But doubt Coal was solely responsible for ending slavery. Slavery and racism still exists and in numbers and in some places it’s worse. You might like to checkout: Walter Rodney’s — How Europe Under Developed Africa, Tom Burgis’s — The Looting Machine, John Perkin’s — The New Confessions Of An Economic Hitman, and Misha Glenny’s — McMafia🤔

And hope you’re not basing the future of mankind on FINITE Flammable Fossils (FFF’s). Let’s put this into perspective of Coal, Oil and Gas are the product of sunlight geologically buried over millions of years which we have and are continuing to extract 10 million times faster. We won’t run out of these energy minerals but they will become more and more difficult to find and extract until their EROEI makes them unaffordable, most likely before 2100, so a child born today should witness that. Virtually everything we produce, purchase and touch is the result of FFF’s, our skin can now be analysed to show Haber and Bosch process.

“Labour (Work) without Energy is a Corpse, Technology without Energy is Sculpture, and a City without Energy is a Museum” — Nate Hagens/Steve Keen, from “Energy Blindness | Frankly #03” — Youtube🤔

Expand full comment

I very much like my coal stocks and tobacco stocks for the healthy dividend they pay.

Expand full comment

Majority of AGW deniers don’t deny the climate is changing, but whether its causation can be attributed to humans addiction to FF’s they’re in denial. What I do believe is this decade will show us which side is right. Whilst I myself am agnostic when it comes to AGW, I don’t believe RE on its own is the panacea to our growing energy problems. But I do believe in being risk averse and taking personal responsibility, and that can be just as draconian, particularly when it comes to properties close to: the sea (coastal erosion), rivers (at risk of flooding); properties in or near forests and woods (at fire risk), all of these properties should be assigned to owners own risk, no public money should be available to them. To alleviate flash flood runoff properties without permeable drives, aprons, patio’s, their owners should be forced to remove them. Open culverts where possible should be constructed instead of underground sewers. I’ve only just stated, but you can see where I’m going. Public information should be aimed at informing the public of the effects of coastal erosion, seasonal floods, flash floods and forest fires, and which should show all the gory effects of crushed, bloated and charred bodies of children, adults who hadn’t heeded the warnings🤔

Expand full comment

Adaptation is always a good idea yet it doesn't seem to be lucrative enough a path to be pursued by politicians. I'm very much on board with adaptation and adjustment to a changing environment, where it is indeed changing in ways that require adaptation.

Expand full comment

You forgot gas stoves. They are killing you, ya know

Expand full comment

Totally. They're worse than smoking.

Expand full comment

Yay! Thank you Irina for being brave enough to say:

"I think it has been demonstrated repeatedly and empirically that human activity does not “cause climate change”. What human activity has caused is habitat destruction, river and ocean pollution, and a lot of work has been done over the past few decades to remedy these and minimise them going forward, at least in some parts of the world."

It puzzles me that people with apparent capability to do energy balances refuse to do the sums and instead choose to smoke hopium with the pro-"renewables" crowd. The only reason that I can come up with is that their salary depends on it. (I am a fan of using sources with higher power densities than we currently do, not lower).

Thanks for all that you do and I hope that the European summer is treating you kindly where you are.

Expand full comment

Thanks, Ross! I think there are two kinds of the climate narrative supporters, one of them being the people who benefit materially from it, as you note, and the other being people who genuinely believe it for one reason or another.

Summer's been the usual midyear nuisance but peak temps lasted a bit less than they did last year, which suits me just fine.

Expand full comment