The Boy with the Thorn in his Side

Brian Kelly hearing the news that the Florida State job is open

Good evening, Senator. “Big Oil” does not set the market price for gasoline and diesel. Prices are largely determined by crude oil futures, as well as refining costs and distribution. Taxes on fuel can also add a significant chunk to the price per gallon depending on the state you live in. Blue states have higher tax rates. That said, why are you outraged about gas and diesel prices? Isn’t this what you wanted to force a “green energy transition” to avert climate catastrophe? Or is your climate panic a grift too?

There is something profoundly dishonest about people who crucify fossil fuels and vilify the coal, oil, and gas industries while enthusiastically enjoying every benefit that they make possible. Climate panic merchants will condemn oil while they drive or Uber around in gas-powered cars. They'll talk about the urgency of reducing our “carbon footprints” while they board airplanes (and in some cases, private jets) and putz around to tropical destinations. They'll demonize oil and gas, but live a materialistic modern lifestyle ordering products off of Amazon that have to be shipped to their doorstep by 18-wheelers and box trucks, and sometimes from overseas by means of air or cargo ship. This eco-maniacs expect store shelves to remain stocked with goods or groceries for their personal convenience while forgetting what it takes to achieve all of that. Climate alarmists denigrate natural gas while heating their homes or apartments, cooking their food, and in many cases, supplying electricity. Heck, fossil fuels are what keep their electronics charged and provide a WiFi connection so they can whine online about how evil fossil fuel companies and capitalism are. They will malign the oil and gas industry, yet reap the benefits of smartphones, computers, medical equipment and medicines, roads, household appliances, plastics, lubricants, and synthetic clothing that are all derived from or manufactured using fossil fuels. Our extraordinary mobility, food abundance, medical care, sanitation, communications, industrial capacity, and protection from extreme weather were built with affordable, reliable energy. Fossil fuels have provided those and have lifted billions of people out of poverty and freed humanity from a world in which dying from cold weather exposure, disease, and backbreaking manual labor were everyday realities. Fossil fuels took a naturally dangerous environment and have made it far safer for us to live in, not the other way around as you have been misled to believe by the likes of Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, and United Nations. It is true that burning them releases carbon dioxide (it's a natural byproduct of combustion). And it is also true that adding more of it to the atmosphere does induce a slight warming tendency in the Earth's lower atmosphere, all else being equal. But that does not necessarily mean that warming poses an “existential threat” to life on Earth. In fact, there could even be some benefits (e.g., longer growing seasons; less icy travel delays; and fewer cold-related deaths, which outnumber heat-related in most regions). However, there are always pros and cons to any sort of climate change that occurs (natural, man-made, or both). Cooling, for instance, would shorten growing seasons in most of the mid-latitudes and increase the risk of early- and late-season frosts that kill crops. You are not guaranteed, much less entitled to no risk. Some regions probably will not see positive outcomes from global warming. But risk is a given. That is why you must adapt and mitigate accordingly. But risk is not a good enough justification to demand we decarbonize the global economy by eliminating oil, natural gas, and coal from the energy mix. That all being said, I am indifferent to using fossil fuels as an energy source. If energy technologies advance to where our modern and highly industrialized economies can be powered with so-called “carbon-free” alternatives, then by all means, great. But the federal government should not be favoring one sector over another. The free market should decide. For instance, I would consider buying a Tesla (the technology is cool just from an engineering standpoint) even though I am against EV mandates. But that would be my personal choice, not something forced upon me by politicians. In a perfect world, the free market would already be scaling up nuclear fission, but based on my personal experience, nuclear is vehemently opposed by many climate activists. Polling data supports this, as Pew Research Center data routinely show that Democrats oppose nuclear over Republicans and Independents by a significant margin. And virtually all climate panic puppies are Democrats or politically left-wing. You will be hard pressed to find a real conservative climate activist. In fact, I have never encountered one in all of the years I have spent talking about this topic. But there is a difference between being indifferent to fossil fuels and being open to alternatives all the while recognizing the importance of them, and then actively demonizing fossil fuels while benefitting from them. It is night and day. As far as I'm concerned, if you vilify fossil fuels, your ability to use them and enjoy their benefits should be forcibly revoked. Local authorities should cut off your electricity, shut off your gas lines, and confiscate your consumer electronics and WiFi router. If you want to outlaw fossil fuels and get to “net zero,” then I suggest you take personal steps to do it. Do not wait for Big Daddy government to step into frame and hold your hand like a guiding light. Be the change you want to see and lead by example. Give up all modern luxuries and show the rest of the world that you really care about “saving the planet.” Otherwise, just shut up about the environment.

Flower of Scotland is heard in a FIFA World Cup for the first time in 28 years 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿