
In the first article in this series, I discussed the obscure origins of the human-induced cliÂmate change movement, which started mostly as a population control movement funded through technocratic nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) largely founded by the progeny of the Gilded Age robber barons in the United States. After the end of the Cold War, these groups subtly evolved from population management hysteria to an obsessive focus on environmenÂtalism and carbon dioxide reduction through the existential bogeyman of anthropogenic climate change. Even though the entry point has evolved, both movements tellingly have the same end objective. Their claim is that the only way to save the planet is to reduce global populaÂtion to around one billion individuals from the current level of eight billion inhabitants.š
In the second article, I focused on the vast array of forces that influence Earthâs climate and weather in both the short and long term. I discussed the fact that many of the prime drivers of climate change are natural forces that cannot be controlled and have nothing to do with human emissions from energy usage or carbon dioxide emissions. I further showed that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are a net positive for humanity and Earth, as this higher concentration facilitates increased plant growth and crop yield. My conclusion was that the single-bullet theory currently favored by mainstream media, politicians and the scientific intelligentsiaâthat all climate and weather flucÂtuations are a function of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrationâis wholly incomplete and not nearly concrete enough to support the solutions they propose.²
In the third installment, I covered the dubiÂous and unethical lengths to which the scientific intelligentsia that trumpets the human-induced climate change argument goes to shut down reasonable inquiry and scientific debate on this globally important topic, in a manner not so dissimilar to how the church once stymied and villainized any questioning of church docÂtrine both prior to and after the advent of mass communication and the movable-type printing press. I continued this thread by discussing the manipulation and corruption of this âscienceâ into mass media propaganda that is pumped at us in a continuous, high-volume stream. I also described how the vast majority of this propaÂganda is not supported by underlying data and how these data are frequently sliced-and-diced to reach misleading conclusions.Âł
In the last installment of my global climate change series, I will come to the rubber-meets-the-road moment of our discussion: the cost. What is being asked of ordinary citizens to combat the purportedly existential threat of human-induced climate change?
ELECTRIFYING THE WORLD
If you follow the mainstream media thread and the political winds, then apparently the only long-term solution to arrest human-induced climate change is to stop using hydrocarbons or combustion-based fuels as a source of energy on planet Earth. Over the next seventy-five years, this argument goes, all of our transportation, heating and cooling needs and all of our indusÂtrial output must be converted from fossil fuels to direct electrical operation, and all of that electricity must be produced from ârenewableâ energy sources, namely solar photovoltaic and wind-driven turbines. Oddly enough, nuclear as a fuel source, though its usage produces no carbon dioxide (other than in uranium extraction and refinement), is not seen as part of the answer, even though it is the most logical solution (if you believe that carbon dioxide emissions are a real problem threatening Earth). The primary reason for this massive disconnect is never quite rectified by the mainstream environmental movement, other than acknowledging that anti-nuclear was a major focus of the previous generation of environmentalists, and old habits die hard.
The task of electrifying the entire world and supplying that electricity solely through solar and wind, if completed, would signify the largest resource-, engineering- and humanity-changing project ever undertaken. Today, the total energy usage of all the humans on the planet in all of its forms (excluding human and animal power) totals roughly five hundred fifty-five quadrillion British Thermal Units (BTUs), or seventy million BTUs per person per year evenly averaged across humanity. (One BTU is the amount of energy required to raise the temÂperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.) Despite all the focus and progress on renewables over the past forty years, 80 perÂcent of these five hundred fifty-five quadrillion BTUs currently is supplied from the combustion and usage of fossil fuels; 7.5 percent is from nuclear fission and the remaining 12.5 percent is from renewables. However, 80 percent of the renewables slice is hydroelectric from dams, which is limited by geography and available waterways. Thus, only about 2.5 percent of the energy we use today comes from the desired end-game sources of solar and wind.
Even if you make the broadly erroneous assumption of keeping total energy (and, by association, population) flat for the next seventy-five years, the challenge being presented to humanity, if you follow the current narrative, is the conversion of four hundred forty-five quadrillion BTUs of energy usage from hydroÂcarbon-based energy to wind and solar. This requires completely abandoning the current enÂergy infrastructure in favor of an almost entire rebuild. Estimates vary wildly, but the up-front capital cost to do this has been put at somewhere around fifty to one hundred trillion dollars over the next fifty to seventy-five years. To put this in perspective, the total gross domestic product (GDP) of the world is currently estimated at around one hundred trillion dollars. In other words, in order to solve global warming from carbon pollution, we would need to spend as much or more than the value of the entire global economy over the next fifty years. This level of commitment would require that just about all of the worldâs economic resources, financial capital and human ingenuity be allocated to the âgreenâ revolution for the rest of our lifetimes and those of our children.
TRADE-OFFS
If the price tag and forced allocation of all of Earthâs resources for the next century were not shocking enough on their own, they still repreÂsent only half of the challenge. Accomplishing this energy transition will also require us to strip-mine the planet bare of cobalt, lithium, nickel, graphite, copper, aluminum and steel. Each of these key materials would require a proÂduction increase of ten to fifteen times todayâs level to supply the energy transition (Figure 1). If you believe the politicians, the proposed soluÂtion for the existential environmental threat of our timeâhuman-induced climate changeâis to almost entirely deplete the planet of its metalÂlic resources to create a reportedly ârenewableâ energy system. We must destroy Earth in order to save Earthâa real Sophieâs choice.

Beyond the absurd issues of cost and availÂability of materials, we are going to run into a physical space constraint as well. Modern nuclear and fossil fuel power generation do not take up much physical space. A nuclear or natural gas or coal-fired power plant has a relatively small geographic footprint, usuÂally between one-half to one square meter per megawatt-hour of power produced. All of the preferred renewables have a physical footprint somewhere between twenty to one hundred times larger than hydrocarbons or nuclear per megawatt-hour of power produced. This means that the anticipated build-out of the renewable energy infrastructure would require trade-offs that are going to involve the removal of natural space for solar and wind turbine farms. As we get close to the end game, we are going to have to convert living space and agricultural land into energy farms as well.
But it gets even worse. Both of the preferred renewable energy sources suffer from a gross intermittency problem. Solar only works when the sun is shining (or about half the time), and wind only works when the wind is blowingâ and if the wind is blowing too hard or it is too cold outside, the wind turbines require shutting down to prevent damage. Due to this intermitÂtency problem, not only do you need to build an entirely new energy infrastructure, but you either need to maintain the existing energy inÂfrastructure as back-up for nighttime or extreme weather conditions, or build an electric battery storage system that is orders of magnitude larger than anything we are remotely capable of today.
ENERGY RETURN ON INVESTMENT
There is one more factor that would create a major hurdle to the green energy revolution, something called Energy Return on Investment (EROI). This is a ratio where the useful energy extracted when an energy product is used is diÂvided by the amount of energy required to bring that energy to market. In simple terms: energy out divided by energy in. This conceptâgetÂting more out of energy resources than you put inâhas supported the entirety of the Industrial Revolution, a large global population and the high standard of living currently experienced by a large portion of humanity.
For nuclear, the EROI ratio is about one hundred, and for most modern oil and gas apÂplications, it is between thirty and fifty, meaning that for those two energy sources we get thirty to one hundred times more energy out during combustion than is required to mine, refine and deliver that energy source to market (Figure 2). However, as you move down the curve to the non-hydro renewables, this ratio drops dramatiÂcally. Most solar and wind applications have an EROI of between two and ten. It should also be noted that a century ago, coal, oil and gas were closer to one hundred. As the best resources are used first, this ratio drops as second-tier resources are extracted and more energy is required for the extraction process (think hyÂdraulic fracturing).

The same relationship will hold true for wind and solar. Only the best solar and wind resources get this two to ten EROI ratio. As the best resources (or best geography, in this case) are utilized first, as we get closer to the end of the global energy transition and second- and third-tier wind and solar resources are required to convert the entire system to renewables, it is entirely likely that wind and solar will fall below the historic investment threshold of seven, and actually fall to below one. Stated another way, late-stage wind and solar energy development in geographically disadvantaged areas will require more energy to develop than we get in return! This is actually what the mainstream media and political establishment are proposing. Once the EROI of new energy resources falls below two or even one, the economics actually tell you to stop investing in this incremental energy and go back to human and animal power, which would be very regressive for humanity, to say the least.
A SHAKY COURSE OF ACTION
It appears to me that the political, media and scientific orthodoxy has decided on a course of action for humanity that already is allocating trillions of dollars and a huge amount of our human capital to solve a problem that only exists on an extremely shaky scientific footing. In the developed nations of the world that purport to be governed along democratic principles, can a single member of the reading audience rememÂber casting a vote on this course of action?
This is where that old adage of being wary of foreign invaders bearing gifts holds true. When politicians discuss climate change, they do so in terms that play either to our ignorance (âtrust the scienceâ) or our emotions (âdo it for the childrenâ). When it comes time for these same politicians to discuss the costs and trade-offs they require, they consistently paint the remaking of the global energy system in the most positive of lights. Not only will it save the planet for the future, it will simultaneously pay for itself, reduce energy bills and solve all the ills of the world. None of this is remotely close to reality. When it comes time to actually implement these enormous societal changes, we can expect to see most politicians delaying the consequences until they know they will be out of office, all the while continuing to sing the same song and enriching themselves in the process. (See Al Gore as the case in point.)
It is time for more of us to begin questioning the accuracy and motivations of the climate-change proponents. If we do not hold the line now and business as usual is allowed to conÂtinue, we are going to spend the next fifty years allocating almost the entirety of humankindâs resources toward solving a problem that likely does not exist. Of course, there is one shortcut solution to the human-induced climate change problem that does not require rebuilding the worldâs energy infrastructure: reduce Earthâs population to less than one billion inhabitants. If seven out of every eight of us have to go to solve this problem, who decides who stays and who goes? No doubt, those same politicians knocking on our front door.
REFERENCES
- Kirkpatrick J. The obscure origins of modern-day climate change hysteria. Wise Traditions. Winter 2023;24(3):77-86.
- Kirkpatrick J. Climate change part II: As the world turns, Earthâs natural climate cycles. Wise Traditions. Spring 2024;25(1):42-50.
- Kirkpatrick J. Climate change part III: The emperorâs new clothes. Wise Traditions. Fall 2024;25(3):43-50.
Leave a Reply