By Mark Anderson
STOP THE PRESSES! News Association
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in a new 637-page document is urging sweeping changes in society’s energy infrastructure, with all the costly economic changes, and regimented social adjustments, that such policy overhauls would inevitably bring.
The objective? Mount the secularist summit of “net zero” carbon emissions—in modern science’s godless world of carbon-based lifeforms—which is no easy climb. Gone is any consideration for God’s providence, since the intelligent design inherent in God’s creation suggests that mankind’s essential needs are provided for—gifts of grace, if you will—which, by their very nature, are eternal.
While one wonders how to even accurately measure when that elusive atmospheric net-zero “sweet spot” is achieved so it can be heralded as the new reality, this outlook is based on several challengeable assumptions, the most significant of which is the claim that crude oil, natural gas and coal are actually “fossil fuels,” a hydrocarbon gruel cooked up in the earth via the excruciatingly slow decomposition of dinosaurs and other flora and fauna that thrived when the dinosaurs supposedly died off from a “mass extinction” some 65 million years ago.
Such an extreme time frame posits a random universe and rejects even the mere suggestion that the world is the offspring of intelligent design and divine providence; thus it’s presumed that whatever lies beneath the surface is all there is, that it will permanently run out, and therefore we must adopt “sustainable” energy sources since the wind will usually blow and the sun, for all intents and purposes, will always be there.
What few care to discuss is that the underlying fossil fuels narrative alone is such a stretch that it’s a wonder we’re even having this conversation on so-called man-made “climate change.” That malleable concept over time replaced “global warming” and “global cooling,” with that last scenario having envisioned a big freeze rather than the hellish cauldron of doom that awaits us all, lest we collectively adopt what this National Academies report calls a “whole of government” approach to close or slam the door on fossil fuels and step or get shoved into a digitized world of all-electric cars, smart cities, wall-to-wall AI, etc.
This new report, the second of two reports, examines the nation’s proposed “transition to a decarbonized energy system; [it] focuses on gaps and barriers to implementation of net-zero policies, emphasizing the need for a strong social contract during the decades-long transition,” the report’s summary states. “The first report provided a technical and federal policy blueprint for the next 10 years, and its recommendations helped shape climate policies included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, and Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.”
The summary quotes Princeton Professor Stephen Pacala, who chaired the committee that wrote the report, as saying:
Recent energy and climate policies are revolutionary and unprecedented in both scale and scope, putting the U.S. on or close to a path to zero net emissions by mid-century. They are also designed to realize a fair and equitable energy transition, improve human health, and revitalize U.S. manufacturing . . . . With so much at stake, the main challenge now is effective implementation of these policies. This report addresses how the nation can best overcome the barriers that will slow or prevent a just energy transition.
This report “covers a broad set of societal objectives and technological sectors and includes over 80 recommendations targeting private and public sector engagement,” the summary continues. “Lower-cost energy technologies, legislative support, and the national focus on equity and justice, it says, have created an opportunity for the U.S. to meet urgent needs created by the climate crisis. These developments, in addition to federal regulations and executive orders, state and local policies, and private sector activities, put the United States in a position to take the lead in the global fight against climate change.”
So, given this “global fight,” we appear to have a “war” on our hands, but will it be a war against a looming, genuine climate catastrophe, or ultimately a war against truth, targeting the growing body of naysayers who don’t swallow every line they’re fed by the powers-that-shouldn’t-be?
Notably, there are other ideas on what crude oil is and where it comes from, with some theories positing that it eventually regenerates itself and therefore may also be “sustainable.” But today’s managerial class in big media, big government and elsewhere despises dissent. The politicians and their financial masters don’t want Americans to engage in a real exchange of ideas because, otherwise, they might learn it’s possible that:
A vast biomass of micro-organisms and extremophiles beneath earth surface estimated to be several times the size of the surface biomass [derive] their chemical energy for life from methane and oxygen pulled from sulfates and ferrous oxides. The source of methane [is] way too deep to come from fossils . . . .These recent findings and other evidence were foretold by the late scientist and researcher from Cornell, Thomas Gold, who authored “The Deep Hot Biosphere, The Myth of Fossil Fuels.”
That’s according to a website post at “EarthScience.StackExchange.com,’ which may not be altogether true, but don’t expect to hear anything about it nationally. Real science would debate a wide range of ideas—but that tradition has been eliminated. Besides, “doom and gloom” sells and gets the research dollars, comprising a rich soil for confirmation bias and career advancement. The fix is in, unless we raise some hell.