The Trump administration’s repudiation of the “green” agenda will have many benefits, not least for the environment. At Watts Up With That?, Paul Driessen states the environmental case against “green” energy succinctly. See original for links:
[President Trump’s] actions will benefit wild, scenic and agricultural lands in America and worldwide.
* Wind, solar and transmission line installations would have sprawled across tens of millions of acres, impacting habitats, farmlands and scenic vistas, onshore and offshore; interfered with water flow, aviation, shipping and other activities; and killed whales, birds and other wildlife.
* These “clean, green” technologies require far more raw materials than the equipment they replace: electric cars need 4-6 times more metals and minerals than gasoline counterparts; onshore wind turbines require 9 times more raw materials than equivalent megawatts from combined-cycle natural gas turbines; offshore wind requires 14 times more materials than gas turbines; solar panels are just as resource-intensive. And we’d still need gas power plants or grid-scale batteries for windless/sunless periods.
* Those raw material needs would require mining at levels unprecedented in human history. Just meeting “green energy” plus “normal” needs for copper would require more than twice as much copper mining as occurred throughout human history up to now. That would mean mine shafts and open-pit mines; ore removal, crushing and processing; and land, air and water pollution – on unprecedented scales.
* Converting those raw materials into finished technologies, and transporting, installing, maintaining and ultimately removing the turbines, panels, transformers, power lines, batteries and other equipment would require unfathomable quantities of materials, equipment and energy.
* All this mining and processing, equipment damaged and destroyed under normal operations and from extreme weather, leaching from non-recyclable components in landfills, and huge infernos when batteries ignite would send massive quantities of toxic chemicals into air, soils and water worldwide.
* US mining, processing, manufacturing and waste disposal would be done under tough environmental, workplace safety and human rights standards. Not so in despotic regimes in the rest of the world.
* A large portion of the cobalt, lithium, rare earth, graphite and other exotic and strategic materials still come from China, which has monopoly control over mining and processing them. That puts US and Western energy, transportation, communication, AI, defense systems and national security at great risk.
Simply put, humanity would have had to destroy the planet with green energy mining and systems, to save it from imaginary GIGO computer-modeled climate cataclysms.
That is all correct. Donald Trump is the greatest president for the environment since Theodore Roosevelt.
For a more in-depth discussion of the extraordinary mining demands created by “green” energy, and the national security implications of relying on China for our electrical grid–someday, I would like to meet someone who thinks this is a good idea–go here.
ONE MORE THING: This observation by Driessen explains a lot about our current, benighted politics:
Relatively few Americans today have worked on farms or in mines, oilfields, refineries or factories. Few understand where their food, clothing, cell phones, cosmetics and other essential products actually come from. Most would be astonished to learn that nearly everything we touch or use ultimately comes from holes in the ground. Always has; always will.
That’s why we must “Mine, baby, mine” right here in the United States, to survive and prosper.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/03/mine-baby-mine.php
No comments:
Post a Comment