Andrew Stuttaford of National Review Online explains how left-wing climate priorities ignore reality.
There is a perfectly respectable argument to be made that the world should be reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions. There’s also a perfectly respectable argument to be made that the West’s current “race to new zero” is not only reckless, but, given the attitude of major GHG emitters such as China, Russia, and India, largely pointless. The idea that the West is going to inspire these countries to change their ways with the force of its moral example is laughable, an embarrassing display of both naivete and self-importance.
It is also the case that by participating in this “race,” the West is putting itself at a substantial geopolitical disadvantage, both by weakening its own economies and by putting itself in a position where it has to rely on unfriendly or unreliable countries for its energy, something, of course, that is particularly true of those EU countries which have become dangerously dependent on Russian oil and, even more so, natural gas. That’s not a problem that is going to be fixed overnight, and it is also a problem that, in the wake of the Russian war on Ukraine, has become very pressing indeed. …
… The oil price has now soared, but thanks to ESG, and ideologically driven notions of corporate social responsibility, there’s a clear danger (reinforced by the political and regulatory climate and perceptions of how it will develop) that the cash will not be there to support the additional production that the West is likely to need for some years to come, particularly if much of Europe is to end its dependence on Putin, or avoid being plunged into crisis if Russia’s dictator turns off the taps.
Renewables alone will not be enough to fill the gap. It would take too long to build enough new capacity, and “enough” will never be enough until there’s an effective answer to the problem of intermittency. …
