First, my apologies for being late to the party. This is simply an outstanding essay, one which frames the “climate change is catastrophe” argument in its proper, Malthusian perspective.
That said, and with due respect, I must disagree with the “there is no energy transition” narrative. Frezzos and Hagens both make the mistake of framing their arguments in terms of fuels, not energy. In that context, they may be correct, but there is a distinct and identifiable transition of energy density! From dung, scraps of biomass, to coal, to oil, to gas, and ultimately to nuclear mankind has been on an inexorable path to find more energy from less substance.
Vaclav Smil laid out the great energy transitions quite succinctly. From mastery of fire, which set hominins apart from the rest of the mammals, to foraging to sedentary cropping and domestication of animals, which led to higher cultures, to biomass fuels (wood, charcoal, crop residue) and animate power to fossil fuels and inanimate prime movers, which led to the modern world. In each of those steps, one can see the gradual progression of energy sources from the diffuse to the denser source. The next transition will be from fossil fuels to non-fossil, namely nuclear and (someday, maybe?) fusion.
Each transition does not mark a line of use/not use. Society simply repurposes those sources previously used consumptively for fuel – structural supports, as noted for mines and railroads. As we transition from fossil to non-fossil, the myriad of other purposes fossils provide besides energy will be enhanced. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, lubricants all come to mind. Nor is each transition an event; Frezzos seems to base his arguments on time frames of years, rather than eons. the most recent, from animate to fossil, took less time because man had learned to innovate, and because he made efforts to intellectually understand his environment (Carnot, Faraday, Watt, et al).
The “transition” to renewables is indeed a political slogan, a rallying cry that panders to fear and guilt. It is nothing but a march backward through the centuries, when we crossed the oceans with sails and the Dutch were making historical monuments. Oh, the technology has changed, but the energy density of wind and solar remain the same now as they were when Rome ruled the world. To go backward is to do nothing; it is pure loss; it means that one has neither understood nor profited by the lessons of the past.
Your opinion that the the “best way to achieve rapid population decline without embracing the … ‘degrowth’ agenda is to help the developing world reach our living standards as quickly as possible” is irrefutable. The population transition will require access to reliable, affordable DENSE energy sources. The power of the atom is the apex of that food chain.
Climate change, Ehrlich's Population Bomb, peak oil, food production are each borne from uncertainty and fear. The nefarious among us use those fears to manipulate and control. But we must always remember, nothing in life is to be feared; it is only to be understood (Marie Curie).
You are never late to this party, Barry. It will be going on until it is clear that it is no longer necessary or we perish, whichever comes first.
And thank you for the deeply thoughtful comment, and your respectful disagreement.
But it is not obvious to me that we disagree at all! I'll explain. Tell me what you think:
"Frezzos and Hagens both make the mistake of framing their arguments in terms of fuels, not energy." We agree. It is possible we did not articulate our thoughts clearly (or well!).
If we read Frezzos argument correctly (having not yet read the book, just judging from his 75 min discussion on TGS), it isn't that there hasn't been an energy transition. It is that the one being presently portrayed using spinning green crucifixes and sun catchers and biofuels and EVS and batteries and such is not actually one.
That these are NOT new technologies. For simplicities sake, they've existed for decades and they are not up to the task of decarbonization (if that were one's goal).
Because fission is so well established by now, even it is not a new technology. It was, as you suggest, the latest move up the energy density curve in the actual transition from diffuse to dense energy sources (vs. the pretend "energy transition" of today).
Or, if you will, there is nothing new about the technologies involving the currently misnamed "energy transition", these were all part of the one you state above that have already occurred.
Pablo Hill makes a good point below about how low birth rates don't necessarily lead to lower primary energy consumption, at least right away. South Korea's industrialization, automation and energy intensity is a great example.
I may not have chosen the best words in our post to portray Frezzos' thesis, or in this response. (We are not professional writers in the least!). But on the transition that you describe above, and Smil details so incredibly, we are in lockstep agreement.
To us, this is similar to what we wrote about the best way to rapidly reduce population without embracing the degrowth agenda from survival to modernity: simply irrefutable.
Thank you for the very thoughtful comment. It is the essence of what we started out to do with this Substack.
You are never late. We still have time to turn back from the brink. That is why we are both here.
Thank you sir/ma'am (forgive me, pronouns aren't my "thing.") We are in complete agreement, and the one who wasn't clear was me - I disagree with Frezzos thesis, not yours. It would be interesting to read Frezzos book to see if he quotes or references Smil.
Substack is a wonderful platform for thesis defense, discussion and improvement. Mike Hulme has written that "in disagreement, there is learning." In today's polarized, environment of some "news" platforms, disagreement usually causes rabies in one's spirit animal! I've said this before in several blogs, but, as Levin puts it, "the breakdown of political culture in our day is not a function of our having forgotten how to agree with each other but of our having forgotten how to disagree constructively."
Thank you again for your great work, and please keep those hits coming!
You bet. Grateful for your contribution here, from our earliest.
p.s. the team is all men who don't do pronouns. You're way past "sir" with us at this point, Barry. And where we live, men who don't use pronouns use ma'am out of respect for women, and without trepidation. ;)
I especially appreciate that you put "climate change" in quotes.
Do you not give credence to all those folks saying the declining population numbers may be caused by the "excess deaths" attributable to some of Bill Gates's schemes for depopulation? John Campbell, for example, has been discussing this for some time in his videos.
Viz Energy AND Civilisation: A History by Vaclav Smil. Also pretty much anything by Bjorn Lomborg from the early 2000s. The 1.5C limit was always a fantasy and chasing it, let alone Net Zero in the near future, would either prove prohibitively expensive or fatal to reliable energy provision.
Lomborg is maligned as "not a scientist!". We love those types of claims. That's the tell when the points being made cannot be refuted, even by the Priests with the "scientist" credentials.
I must admit, I have virtually infinite faith in humankind to continue to improve its conditions for as large a population as may exist. while the timing may not be agreeable to all, the outcome will be the same. rather than Hubberts Law, we should consider Jevon's Paradox, that as we become more efficient using all types of energy, we will simply demand more of it overall, from every source possible.
However, absent government subsidies for wind and solar, it seems that other than a few specific locations, they will not necessarily be part of the mix.
That is the Cornucopian view. The one with which Julian Simon embarrassed Paul Ehrlich in their famous bet.
Today, it is commonly maligned as the "techno-optimist" view (by neo-Malthusians).
Eventually, the neo-Malthusians could be right about some things. Whether that's accidental or for some other reason than those they predicted (ergo, stopped clock is correct twice a day) or something they've actually squawked about, future generations will have to see.
Because exactly none of what they are raising hell about is going to happen in the next 20 - 50 years. (and no member of this team makes it beyond another 35-30 years, so we won't see it or write about it!)
Interesting. But depopulation from lower birth rates may be caused more by cultural changes, like millions of abortion and young adults who don't want to marry and have children. There is also the increase in costs of raising children. So it's complicated and can't be explained simply by affluence.
Those factors no doubt apply. Affluence alone won't always explain perfectly, everywhere, all the time.
Level of freedom is another example of a factor that is not purely economic.
But when you look at birth rates and income per capita through an inverse lens, the same generalization also applies (even though, technically, in many such areas, the birth rate is actually dropping at a faster rate than in the advanced world, but still higher).
South Korea, a nation gripped by one of the steepest population declines on the planet, offers a fascinating paradox. With the world’s lowest fertility rate, it’s tempting to think that as its population shrinks, energy demand would naturally follow suit. Yet, the numbers tell a different story.
In 2022, South Korea ranked as the seventh-largest energy consumer globally, reaching a staggering 547.9 TWh of electricity consumption—a 2.7% increase from the previous year. This surge, despite the declining population, is largely driven by South Korea’s industrial sectors, which are notorious for their emission intensity. To put it simply, South Korea doesn’t just consume energy, it *produces* energy demand. Its per capita energy consumption, which in 2023 stood at 5.6 tons of oil equivalent (toe) per person, is a full 50% higher than the OECD average. And within that figure, electricity alone accounted for 11 MWh per person.
Despite the country’s demographic decline, total energy consumption fell by just under 3% in 2023—a modest dip in the context of a 1.5% average annual increase since 2010. KEEI’s Mid-Term Energy Demand Outlook predicts a 2.3% annual growth in energy consumption through 2025, underpinned by industrial demand. This serves as a stark reminder: population might decline, but energy consumption tied to economic activity remains resilient.
The secret lies in South Korea’s industrial might, where automation has become the backbone of growth. The country boasts the world’s highest ratio of robots to workers, meaning that even with fewer people, productivity—and thus energy demand—has been able to scale.
In short, the future doesn’t see mankind passively watching its standards of living decline. Instead, we adapt and innovate, finding new ways to use materials and energy more efficiently—if not at a faster rate. Population may dwindle, but the engines of industry and technological advancement show no signs of slowing down. South Korea, in particular, is a case study in how economic momentum can outpace demographic trends.
Other than the U.S., it is hard to see the present conditions for innovation and industrialization (read: energy surplus) to enable what you articulately described being easily replicated in another OECD country.
As Doomberg likes to say, "on the road from prosperity to starvation is riots", so we would not lay money on the prior sentence, and the comment is limited to the present view of the playing field. (and as Malthus and Ehrlich and others proved, and you are certainly aware, such myopic views don't tend to work out well for long-term predictions!).
Thank you for introducing Fressoz's ideas. They are fascinating and I've never heard anything like this articulated before. I'd always assumed that "coal saved the forests and oil saved the whales". Perhaps a decreasing proportion of forestry in a rapidly growing industrialising economy is key to why wood supply never reached crisis point in Britain in the 19th century?
Thanks for being here, and you are more than welcome.
For those interested (who might not have picked up on the link to The Great Simplification podcast on which Frezzos recently appeared), here you go (and worth the listen!)>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-7MPU109fY&t=1s
It would be great (and timely) to read an analysis of federal preemption over California’s auto emissions rules that have the practical effect of letting the CA legislature determine what kinds of cars the rest of America gets to purchase. Any chance y’all could look into this?
For example the Clean Air Act gives the Feds sole jurisdiction over car emissions standards. Prior administrations have granted waivers to this requirement issuing “waivers” that each Democrat administration routinely grants. The CAA states:
42 U.S. Code § 7543(b)
No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—
(A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,
(B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or
(C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 7521(a) of this title.
So the default federal rule is a presumption against these waivers. However the EPA website states the opposite:
“According to the Clean Air Act Section 209(b) – State Standards, EPA shall grant a waiver unless the Administrator finds that California:
1. was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards;
2. does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or
3. such standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.”
Notice that EPA changes the statute from “No such waiver shall be granted unless” to “Shall grant a waiver unless”? What gives? Did some court case reverse the plain language of the statute?
A fabulous essay! After reading “ The Frackers” I have more faith than ever the world will innovate and prosper, it’s just going to be a bumpy ride from time to time primarily caused by people who haven’t reviewed history as you just did. The firewood statistics…. Wow, but drive around the rural areas of America and so many people still use wood as their primary fuel source for heat.
As bad as force training and electronic collars might seem if you're a GSP or Brittany or (you pick), I reckon in some ways it's actually easier than living as a human in western civilization today.
We’re all in on the GSP for ourselves and to raise and sell to others as pets and gun dogs. We train and board almost any breed but a guy has his favorites for certain reasons. When we go, I think you’ll appreciate their excellent attributes. The ecollar is the greatest invention in dog training equipment ever imo. Add on the GPS 15 years ago and it’s never been safer or easier to train a gun dog. In 2018 me and some other dog trainers did an overnight tuna trip out of Grand Isle. We were so overwhelmed by the infrastructure and technical construction required we couldn’t quit talking about it. We even passed on the last 3 hours of fishing because the Captain said he knew where they were drilling a well and he’d take us to see it if we wanted. I will never forget the size of that floating rig. And there was support ships all around even helicopters came and went. That’s when I decided I needed to get informed. Went back in 2021 and it was incredible how many ships etc were parked. I pray daily for America and for our leadership to harness the greatness of oil, gas, and coal to give opportunities to poorer people to earn a decent standard of living by having access to affordable, reliable energy for electricity and powering machines. TAfter I read both Alex Epstein’s books I became obsessed at learning and sharing my new found knowledge with anyone that will listen or read a post I share. Finding your essays was just another great thing that came from me listening to a podcast with Doomberg as the guest. That put me on Substack and it’s been an education like I never imagined. Can’t wait to repay the favor and put you behind some great dogs with other like minded freedom loving friends! Thanks for talking your time to allow so many to get informed. 🗽🇺🇸
Great piece. Unfortunately, I don’t think the anti-human Ecofacsists will change their mind about part time renewables because “climate change” is a religion and their preferred vehicle to exert control and, ultimately, bring about the one world government that the guilt ridden billionaires and their grifting NGOs all long for.
First, my apologies for being late to the party. This is simply an outstanding essay, one which frames the “climate change is catastrophe” argument in its proper, Malthusian perspective.
That said, and with due respect, I must disagree with the “there is no energy transition” narrative. Frezzos and Hagens both make the mistake of framing their arguments in terms of fuels, not energy. In that context, they may be correct, but there is a distinct and identifiable transition of energy density! From dung, scraps of biomass, to coal, to oil, to gas, and ultimately to nuclear mankind has been on an inexorable path to find more energy from less substance.
Vaclav Smil laid out the great energy transitions quite succinctly. From mastery of fire, which set hominins apart from the rest of the mammals, to foraging to sedentary cropping and domestication of animals, which led to higher cultures, to biomass fuels (wood, charcoal, crop residue) and animate power to fossil fuels and inanimate prime movers, which led to the modern world. In each of those steps, one can see the gradual progression of energy sources from the diffuse to the denser source. The next transition will be from fossil fuels to non-fossil, namely nuclear and (someday, maybe?) fusion.
Each transition does not mark a line of use/not use. Society simply repurposes those sources previously used consumptively for fuel – structural supports, as noted for mines and railroads. As we transition from fossil to non-fossil, the myriad of other purposes fossils provide besides energy will be enhanced. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, lubricants all come to mind. Nor is each transition an event; Frezzos seems to base his arguments on time frames of years, rather than eons. the most recent, from animate to fossil, took less time because man had learned to innovate, and because he made efforts to intellectually understand his environment (Carnot, Faraday, Watt, et al).
The “transition” to renewables is indeed a political slogan, a rallying cry that panders to fear and guilt. It is nothing but a march backward through the centuries, when we crossed the oceans with sails and the Dutch were making historical monuments. Oh, the technology has changed, but the energy density of wind and solar remain the same now as they were when Rome ruled the world. To go backward is to do nothing; it is pure loss; it means that one has neither understood nor profited by the lessons of the past.
Your opinion that the the “best way to achieve rapid population decline without embracing the … ‘degrowth’ agenda is to help the developing world reach our living standards as quickly as possible” is irrefutable. The population transition will require access to reliable, affordable DENSE energy sources. The power of the atom is the apex of that food chain.
Climate change, Ehrlich's Population Bomb, peak oil, food production are each borne from uncertainty and fear. The nefarious among us use those fears to manipulate and control. But we must always remember, nothing in life is to be feared; it is only to be understood (Marie Curie).
Thank you for the compliment.
You are never late to this party, Barry. It will be going on until it is clear that it is no longer necessary or we perish, whichever comes first.
And thank you for the deeply thoughtful comment, and your respectful disagreement.
But it is not obvious to me that we disagree at all! I'll explain. Tell me what you think:
"Frezzos and Hagens both make the mistake of framing their arguments in terms of fuels, not energy." We agree. It is possible we did not articulate our thoughts clearly (or well!).
If we read Frezzos argument correctly (having not yet read the book, just judging from his 75 min discussion on TGS), it isn't that there hasn't been an energy transition. It is that the one being presently portrayed using spinning green crucifixes and sun catchers and biofuels and EVS and batteries and such is not actually one.
That these are NOT new technologies. For simplicities sake, they've existed for decades and they are not up to the task of decarbonization (if that were one's goal).
Because fission is so well established by now, even it is not a new technology. It was, as you suggest, the latest move up the energy density curve in the actual transition from diffuse to dense energy sources (vs. the pretend "energy transition" of today).
Or, if you will, there is nothing new about the technologies involving the currently misnamed "energy transition", these were all part of the one you state above that have already occurred.
Pablo Hill makes a good point below about how low birth rates don't necessarily lead to lower primary energy consumption, at least right away. South Korea's industrialization, automation and energy intensity is a great example.
I may not have chosen the best words in our post to portray Frezzos' thesis, or in this response. (We are not professional writers in the least!). But on the transition that you describe above, and Smil details so incredibly, we are in lockstep agreement.
To us, this is similar to what we wrote about the best way to rapidly reduce population without embracing the degrowth agenda from survival to modernity: simply irrefutable.
Thank you for the very thoughtful comment. It is the essence of what we started out to do with this Substack.
You are never late. We still have time to turn back from the brink. That is why we are both here.
Best,
'Mental
Thank you sir/ma'am (forgive me, pronouns aren't my "thing.") We are in complete agreement, and the one who wasn't clear was me - I disagree with Frezzos thesis, not yours. It would be interesting to read Frezzos book to see if he quotes or references Smil.
Substack is a wonderful platform for thesis defense, discussion and improvement. Mike Hulme has written that "in disagreement, there is learning." In today's polarized, environment of some "news" platforms, disagreement usually causes rabies in one's spirit animal! I've said this before in several blogs, but, as Levin puts it, "the breakdown of political culture in our day is not a function of our having forgotten how to agree with each other but of our having forgotten how to disagree constructively."
Thank you again for your great work, and please keep those hits coming!
You bet. Grateful for your contribution here, from our earliest.
p.s. the team is all men who don't do pronouns. You're way past "sir" with us at this point, Barry. And where we live, men who don't use pronouns use ma'am out of respect for women, and without trepidation. ;)
Will they ever learn?
ehrlich has not
Not capable of learning
Not capable or cognitive dissonance?
I especially appreciate that you put "climate change" in quotes.
Do you not give credence to all those folks saying the declining population numbers may be caused by the "excess deaths" attributable to some of Bill Gates's schemes for depopulation? John Campbell, for example, has been discussing this for some time in his videos.
May just be outside our area of expertise.
Fabulous article Mental. Reading all the brilliant and smart comments makes me beg the question ,“why do you guys let me hang out here?”
Great work and I look forward to your next installment.
"Nonreliables" is a misnomer. "Unreliables" would be far more accurate.
you say po-TAY-TOE. I say pa-tatt-o. ;)
Viz Energy AND Civilisation: A History by Vaclav Smil. Also pretty much anything by Bjorn Lomborg from the early 2000s. The 1.5C limit was always a fantasy and chasing it, let alone Net Zero in the near future, would either prove prohibitively expensive or fatal to reliable energy provision.
Two of our favorites.
Lomborg is maligned as "not a scientist!". We love those types of claims. That's the tell when the points being made cannot be refuted, even by the Priests with the "scientist" credentials.
I must admit, I have virtually infinite faith in humankind to continue to improve its conditions for as large a population as may exist. while the timing may not be agreeable to all, the outcome will be the same. rather than Hubberts Law, we should consider Jevon's Paradox, that as we become more efficient using all types of energy, we will simply demand more of it overall, from every source possible.
However, absent government subsidies for wind and solar, it seems that other than a few specific locations, they will not necessarily be part of the mix.
That is the Cornucopian view. The one with which Julian Simon embarrassed Paul Ehrlich in their famous bet.
Today, it is commonly maligned as the "techno-optimist" view (by neo-Malthusians).
Eventually, the neo-Malthusians could be right about some things. Whether that's accidental or for some other reason than those they predicted (ergo, stopped clock is correct twice a day) or something they've actually squawked about, future generations will have to see.
Because exactly none of what they are raising hell about is going to happen in the next 20 - 50 years. (and no member of this team makes it beyond another 35-30 years, so we won't see it or write about it!)
Interesting. But depopulation from lower birth rates may be caused more by cultural changes, like millions of abortion and young adults who don't want to marry and have children. There is also the increase in costs of raising children. So it's complicated and can't be explained simply by affluence.
Those factors no doubt apply. Affluence alone won't always explain perfectly, everywhere, all the time.
Level of freedom is another example of a factor that is not purely economic.
But when you look at birth rates and income per capita through an inverse lens, the same generalization also applies (even though, technically, in many such areas, the birth rate is actually dropping at a faster rate than in the advanced world, but still higher).
South Korea, a nation gripped by one of the steepest population declines on the planet, offers a fascinating paradox. With the world’s lowest fertility rate, it’s tempting to think that as its population shrinks, energy demand would naturally follow suit. Yet, the numbers tell a different story.
In 2022, South Korea ranked as the seventh-largest energy consumer globally, reaching a staggering 547.9 TWh of electricity consumption—a 2.7% increase from the previous year. This surge, despite the declining population, is largely driven by South Korea’s industrial sectors, which are notorious for their emission intensity. To put it simply, South Korea doesn’t just consume energy, it *produces* energy demand. Its per capita energy consumption, which in 2023 stood at 5.6 tons of oil equivalent (toe) per person, is a full 50% higher than the OECD average. And within that figure, electricity alone accounted for 11 MWh per person.
Despite the country’s demographic decline, total energy consumption fell by just under 3% in 2023—a modest dip in the context of a 1.5% average annual increase since 2010. KEEI’s Mid-Term Energy Demand Outlook predicts a 2.3% annual growth in energy consumption through 2025, underpinned by industrial demand. This serves as a stark reminder: population might decline, but energy consumption tied to economic activity remains resilient.
The secret lies in South Korea’s industrial might, where automation has become the backbone of growth. The country boasts the world’s highest ratio of robots to workers, meaning that even with fewer people, productivity—and thus energy demand—has been able to scale.
In short, the future doesn’t see mankind passively watching its standards of living decline. Instead, we adapt and innovate, finding new ways to use materials and energy more efficiently—if not at a faster rate. Population may dwindle, but the engines of industry and technological advancement show no signs of slowing down. South Korea, in particular, is a case study in how economic momentum can outpace demographic trends.
https://www.statista.com/chart/13645/the-countries-with-the-highest-density-of-robot-workers/
Superb color, thanks for the contribution.
Other than the U.S., it is hard to see the present conditions for innovation and industrialization (read: energy surplus) to enable what you articulately described being easily replicated in another OECD country.
As Doomberg likes to say, "on the road from prosperity to starvation is riots", so we would not lay money on the prior sentence, and the comment is limited to the present view of the playing field. (and as Malthus and Ehrlich and others proved, and you are certainly aware, such myopic views don't tend to work out well for long-term predictions!).
Grateful for the comment!
Thank you for introducing Fressoz's ideas. They are fascinating and I've never heard anything like this articulated before. I'd always assumed that "coal saved the forests and oil saved the whales". Perhaps a decreasing proportion of forestry in a rapidly growing industrialising economy is key to why wood supply never reached crisis point in Britain in the 19th century?
Thanks for being here, and you are more than welcome.
For those interested (who might not have picked up on the link to The Great Simplification podcast on which Frezzos recently appeared), here you go (and worth the listen!)>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-7MPU109fY&t=1s
It would be great (and timely) to read an analysis of federal preemption over California’s auto emissions rules that have the practical effect of letting the CA legislature determine what kinds of cars the rest of America gets to purchase. Any chance y’all could look into this?
For example the Clean Air Act gives the Feds sole jurisdiction over car emissions standards. Prior administrations have granted waivers to this requirement issuing “waivers” that each Democrat administration routinely grants. The CAA states:
42 U.S. Code § 7543(b)
No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—
(A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,
(B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or
(C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 7521(a) of this title.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543
So the default federal rule is a presumption against these waivers. However the EPA website states the opposite:
“According to the Clean Air Act Section 209(b) – State Standards, EPA shall grant a waiver unless the Administrator finds that California:
1. was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards;
2. does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or
3. such standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.”
https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations
Notice that EPA changes the statute from “No such waiver shall be granted unless” to “Shall grant a waiver unless”? What gives? Did some court case reverse the plain language of the statute?
Super questions, thanks for the color!
We are circling a piece re: CAA, but on another topic/front.
But this might be a good story if we can find enough detail.
Just went into the "Idea Bin". Thanks for being a subscriber and Info Scout. We love that about our subscribers!
A fabulous essay! After reading “ The Frackers” I have more faith than ever the world will innovate and prosper, it’s just going to be a bumpy ride from time to time primarily caused by people who haven’t reviewed history as you just did. The firewood statistics…. Wow, but drive around the rural areas of America and so many people still use wood as their primary fuel source for heat.
Thanks, Dave.
As bad as force training and electronic collars might seem if you're a GSP or Brittany or (you pick), I reckon in some ways it's actually easier than living as a human in western civilization today.
What say you, Dave?
We’re all in on the GSP for ourselves and to raise and sell to others as pets and gun dogs. We train and board almost any breed but a guy has his favorites for certain reasons. When we go, I think you’ll appreciate their excellent attributes. The ecollar is the greatest invention in dog training equipment ever imo. Add on the GPS 15 years ago and it’s never been safer or easier to train a gun dog. In 2018 me and some other dog trainers did an overnight tuna trip out of Grand Isle. We were so overwhelmed by the infrastructure and technical construction required we couldn’t quit talking about it. We even passed on the last 3 hours of fishing because the Captain said he knew where they were drilling a well and he’d take us to see it if we wanted. I will never forget the size of that floating rig. And there was support ships all around even helicopters came and went. That’s when I decided I needed to get informed. Went back in 2021 and it was incredible how many ships etc were parked. I pray daily for America and for our leadership to harness the greatness of oil, gas, and coal to give opportunities to poorer people to earn a decent standard of living by having access to affordable, reliable energy for electricity and powering machines. TAfter I read both Alex Epstein’s books I became obsessed at learning and sharing my new found knowledge with anyone that will listen or read a post I share. Finding your essays was just another great thing that came from me listening to a podcast with Doomberg as the guest. That put me on Substack and it’s been an education like I never imagined. Can’t wait to repay the favor and put you behind some great dogs with other like minded freedom loving friends! Thanks for talking your time to allow so many to get informed. 🗽🇺🇸
Great piece. Unfortunately, I don’t think the anti-human Ecofacsists will change their mind about part time renewables because “climate change” is a religion and their preferred vehicle to exert control and, ultimately, bring about the one world government that the guilt ridden billionaires and their grifting NGOs all long for.
Exactly!
They may not change their minds. But they will not succeed in the end.
As Doomberg states regularly:
“On the road from prosperity to starvation is riots.” The political riots have begun already in the West.