Environment & Energy

That's because I have very low tolerance for so called "renewable energy," being represented as if had anything to do with preventing or even slowing the destruction of the planetary atmosphere.

It doesn't.

It was promoted to attack nuclear energy, a task at which it has had some success at a loss to all humanity now living and all future generations.

The expensive, and useless "renewable energy will save us" experiment has failed, which is unsurprising, since it was always a reactionary plan to return to the early nineteenth century when a smaller population relied on the weather for its energy supplies. It was abandoned for a reason back then, and should be abandoned now, since it clearly hasn't worked, isn't working and won't work, this at a cost of trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Bill McKibben is another in a long list of bourgeois airheads who think that nuclear energy - the only real viable tool for eliminating fossil fuels - is "too dangerous" but the destruction of the planetary atmosphere isn't "too dangerous."

Driving around in a Prius year after year to go to "renewable energy will save us" rallies is cute, maybe, but it's otherwise useless and clueless.

It is already too late for nuclear energy to save what might have been saved or to restore what might have been restored, a subject of some pernicious gloating in this space. That said, it remains, as it always was for the last 70 years the best tool we have to ban fossil fuels, best by far. It's not even close.

McKibben never came close to that realization from what I can tell. If, in fact he woke up, which I doubt, it's too little, too late.