The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTom Engelhardt Archive
Michael Klare: Fossil Fuels Forever
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Think of them as omens of our age. While global temperatures have been soaring lately — May was the 13th month in a row to break all-time heat records — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just reported, more parochially, that this was the hottest June on record for the lower 48 states. (USA! USA!) No state came in below the norm and in the West and Southwest, it was hot as hell. Record hot.

Then consider this: Arctic summer sea ice is heading for oblivion at a remarkable pace (which, since ice reflects sunlight, means that those waters will now be absorbing yet more heat). In June, that ice was disappearing at a rate 70% faster than the norm. Looked at over the longer term, as Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian explained, “a vast expanse of ice — an area about twice the size of Texas — has vanished over the past 30 years, and the rate of that retreat has accelerated.”

By the way, if you want to keep your eye on the horizon for future such omens, a possible 2016 record is already looming when it comes to billion-dollar-plus weather disasters with eight of them so far this year. The average had once been five annually, but in recent years has been around 11.

If you’ll excuse a mixed (but appropriate) metaphor, given the subject TomDispatch regular Michael Klare takes up today, there seem to be an awful lot of canaries in the coal mines at the moment, and wherever you turn, they’re expiring. Klare’s latest report on our fossil-fueled planet suggests that the use of coal, oil, and natural gas will not fall, but actually continue to rise in the next decades and so, of omens, there will be plenty to come.

  • Hooked!
    The Unyielding Grip of Fossil Fuels on Global Life
    Michael T. Klare • July 14, 2016 • 2,800 Words
(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Economics • Tags: Fossil Fuels 
Hide 12 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. woodNfish says:

    The lies and fraud are strong in this post by the dumb-as-a-rock moron Engelhardt. So, in response:

    We have not had the hottest Summer (ever!), because the records we have are only for a very short period of time, and the data we do have is being manipulated by the government (NOAA and NASA) to commit scientific fraud.

    It is Summer in the Northern Hemisphere. Arctic ice always melts in the Summer. It also does not contribute to rising sea-levels, partly because sea level isn’t rising (that is another eco-fascist lie), and because sea ice is floating on the water. Go figure – I know facts are hard for eco-fascists, and who needs facts when you have religion.

    If the eco-fascists were really concerned about clean energy, they would demand that we build more nuclear power plants, but they aren’t. They are only interested in power, money, exterminating the human race, and returning us to the stone age.

  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Nukes are definetely the best answer we have to replace coal. Wind is inductive, absorbing voltage from the grid to energize the generator electromagnet, and is also very unpredictable. To be fair, wind can produce an ton of megawatts, but many times they come during light demand. The more reliance on wind there is the more fossil fuel plants are needed online as backup in case the wind drops off. Nukes by contrast are completely clean and low risk, whereas the consequences are high but unlikely. With coal plants you have a guarantee of damage to the enviornment. The energy companies are never going to build any new plants unless they have to. This is one case where the government needs to force the hands of industry. Outlaw coal plants and order they be replaced with nukes. You will hear the utilities screaming from Mars but they’ll live. It’s the only realistic option to make a serious dent in carbon pollution at this time.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
    , @Singh
  3. Jeff77450 says:

    I just want the peasants with IQs <95 to stop breeding or, barring that, to get their birthrate to anything below 2.0. Thank you.

    Seen on a bumper-sticker: "If you can't feed'em, don't breed'em."

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  4. woodNfish says:

    Wind is inductive, absorbing voltage from the grid to energize the generator electromagnet…

    You are correct that wind is unreliable, but that is only one of its negatives. I also think you have no idea how a generator works.

  5. Singh says:

    & pair it with a world wide effort to get thorium functional.

  6. @Jeff77450

    I just want the peasants with IQs <95 to stop breeding or, barring that, to get their birthrate to anything below 2.0. Thank you.

    Why 95?

    PS: I hope you’ve had a vasectomy.

    • Replies: @Jeff77450
  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    woodNfish is spot on. Not only is the “science” thoroughly debunked, but also burning fossil fuels is fun.

  8. There is so much idiocy. ignorance, mendacity, and/or misunderstanding of basic science in what Engelhardt’s word processor has just generated that it would take me more time than I feel worth it to address all the false information compressed into those four paragraphs. (Engelhhardt may even have surpassed himself with a new record for errors/word density.) Besides, any ideologues and morons who lap up this nonsense are probably too far gone to be saved by facts or reason.

  9. Jeff77450 says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    I’m *not* sorry to disappoint you but I have two sons ages 27 & 29. Like me they are model, law-abiding, employed, educated, conservative citizens who like girls/women straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting; essentially nothing in the way of vices. Their mother and I weren’t perfect parents by any means but we mostly got it right.

    An IQ of <95 was chosen somewhat arbitrarily. I'm 57, to date myself, and like a lot of college freshman I took the Psychology 131, Introductory Psychology, course to satisfy the humanities requirement but also because it sounded interesting. I remember the factoid that the average high school graduate has an IQ of 105, the average college freshman 115 and the average PhD at 130. If the average college freshman has an IQ of 115 then I'm guessing that the average four-year college graduate has an IQ that's at least slightly higher.

    Charles Murray has opined that it takes a minimum IQ of 115 to do undergraduate college-level work and I've found separate confirmation of the 130 figure for PhDs. I haven't found another source for the average IQ of high school graduates but I haven't really looked for it.

    If it takes an IQ of 105 to obtain what I'm going to call a "red meat" high school diploma, that is to say one in which the curriculum isn't watered-down and actually equips you to go function as an adult in the wider world and master a vocation or profession, then everyone with an IQ that is not very much less than that is going to have a hard time.

    I encourage you to read this (Unz Review) article:

    By all means please feel free to read *all* the comments but I request that you read the comments #46, 83 and 93 and watch the 15-minute video at 57.

    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
  10. I know that it’s fallacious to have litmus tests that are based on something like this, but I just have a difficult time taking anyone seriously who starts off with the words “fossil fuels”. If fossil fuels exist on Titan and in the Horse Head Nebula, then I supposed we can take it as fact that there is, or was, extraterrestrial life.

    • Replies: @Wally
  11. Wally says: • Website
    @Cletus Rothschild

    Exactamundo, Ditzkrieg.

    The idea that oil was formed from dead dinosaurs and decayed plants is absurd and impossible.
    That idea does serve special interests however.

    Russians & NASA Discredit ‘Fossil Fuel’ Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science

    Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find

    Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring
    Oil may not be formed the way we think it is.

  12. Wally says:

    Marxist Engelhardt’s climate nonsense demolished here:

    ‘2016 Hottest Year Ever’ Climate Fraud Exposed

    NOAA/NASA Spurn Satellite Data in Bogus 2015 ‘Hottest Year’ Claim

    SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that 2014 was record HOTTEST year? NO

    Exposed: Academic Fraud in new Climate Science Consensus Claim

    This is too easy.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower