Yeah, I’m not an expert, but well, just about everything in that article is an exageration, including the punctuation. But, well, if we must do something by 2020, might as well buy that SUV that you’ve always wanted, because outside of an asteroid strike or nuclear war, the chances our energy usage will drop is pretty much zero. Rather, it will be a terrible sign if it drops much, because energy usage is a good indicator for prosperity. Prosperity, you know, that thing that if you have enough of most people tend to think socialism sounds stupid.
Let me put it a different way. The only way we’ll be using significantly less energy in 3 or even 10 years is if the average outcome for the world’s population drops. People can die and thus use less energy, or you can make them use less energy and a significant number will die who wouldn’t have otherwise. All based on predictions they’ve made before, that have already passed without coming true. In the next 10,000 years, there might be a vast inland sea where some of the states are once again, but in the next hundred, your beachfront property is more in danger from erosion, hurricanes, and environmentalist lawmakers than rising seas.
The thing that gets me and compelled my reply is
Any delay would pose a threat to human prosperity.
Can you believe it? People who evidently have no understanding of economics have the nerve to say that. A minor change will do nothing. A larger change would be chaotic – both good and bad changes. You think a market can’t prosper in the event that some places get moister, some drier, some hotter, others colder? That is stupid. Compared to human lifespan, these changes would be glacial. Billions of humans would make decisions based on the facts on the ground. And in the end people would find a way to profit however it turns out. About the only thing too stupid to adjust to this noise are government experts.
But wanna know what IS a threat to human prosperity? An imposed plan by the government to try and reduce people’s energy consumption on a massive scale. Energy is a force multiplier of human effort. If we use less, we make less. Well, technology eventually allows us to make more with the same energy. This brings luxury to the masses. The article is basically arguing that we should willingly give up prosperity to protect our prosperity. That isn’t how it works. But, well, I did start off saying everything is an exageration. Perhaps I was wrong. Some of it is just straight up false. I won’t say they’re lies. It’s quite possible they just don’t know any better.